MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Rising sea temperature will reduce krill growth habitat in Antarctica
Antarctic krill are usually less than 6 cm in length, but their size belies the major role they play in sustaining much of the life in the Southern Ocean. They are the primary food source for many species of whales, seals, penguins and fish. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesEurope, China, Japan, North America, India's fault. Nuke em and problem solved, no more “global Warming”.
Aug 26th, 2013 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everybody at fault except Argentina, you talk bollocks, anyway you ndo not have nuclear capability, numbnuts
Aug 26th, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Poor gringe. Where are the British undersea bases? Are they in the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, the British Antarctic Territory.? Will missiles launch from unsuspected locations? Poor little argieland with no nukes. Probably not a good idea to obstruct Britain. You little shit.
Aug 26th, 2013 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK and Timmerturd's mouths are responsible for the most global warning so could you kindly tell these good friends of yours to stop rabbiting so much?
Aug 26th, 2013 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks in advance Mr Patrol
There isn't a single scientific statement in this whole piece. The scenarios they project are not happening anywhere except on their PC's. This is advocacy without science, especially since Antarctica has been cooling of late, making their claims even more farcical.
Aug 27th, 2013 - 04:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Using statistical models”
“the likely impact of projected temperature increases”
“the projected effects of warming”
“the area likely to be worst affected”
“could be as much as 55%”
“projected habitat degradation”
“Our research suggests ” (What research was that?)
“expected warming this century” (What they expected so far didn't happen.)
“could severely reduce the area”
Could, projected, suggests, expected, all meaningless and yet they claim to be scientists. This is a nonsense piece with no basis for their claims; as they say themselves, “Krill is also being commercial commercially fished, although there is nothing to suggest current levels are unsustainable.”
5 DennisA (#)
Aug 27th, 2013 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 27th, 2013 - 04:31 am
I would suggest reading the paper before making stupid comments on the work.
You can find it at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0072246
I suggest you take that stupid log out of your eye and read my comments in conjunction with the paper. My comments are confirmed. They have not even observed a reduction in krill and comment on the volume regenerated each year. This is a modelling exercise masquerading as science. In the Pleiocene Era, the Weddell Sea was much warmer than now, and the biosphere thrived.
Aug 27th, 2013 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You demonstrate your ignorance by rushing to insult, when you have obviously done very little background research yourself.
7 DennisA (#)
Aug 27th, 2013 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 27th, 2013 - 09:42 am
Since when was mathematic modelling not science?????
Are we to wait for a change in krill biomass before we take some sort of measures to protect the penultimate link on the Antarctic Ocean food chain?????
That seems to me to be a very shortsighted way of going about things!!!!!
“... In the Pleiocene Era, the Weddell Sea was much warmer than now, and the biosphere thrived...”
Just in case you didn't realise, we are no longer in the Pleiocene and the biosphere is very different.
As to demonstrating my ignorance, no sir, your senseless diatribe against a reasonable piece of work that has passed peer review just shows you up as a rabid climate change sceptic witha very closed mind!!!!!!!!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!