Antarctica's Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster — And From Beneath
This image taken in 2012 shows part of the Crosson Ice Shelf (center left) and Mount Murphy (foreground) on the western edge of Antarctica. Thwaites Ice Shelf lies beyond the highly fractured expanse of ice (center).
Antarctica's ice has been melting, most likely because of a warming climate. Now, newly published research shows the rate of melting appears to be accelerating.Antarctica is bigger than the U.S. and Mexico combined, and it's covered in deep ice — more than a mile deep in some places. Most of the ice sits on bedrock, but it slowly flows off the continent's edges. Along the western edge, giant glaciers creep down toward the sea. Where they meet the ocean, they form ice shelves.The shelves are the specialty of Ala Khazendar, a geophysicist and polar expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif."You have this floating plate of ice being fed by the glaciers flowing from the interior of the continent," he says, "while having ocean water underneath it." He calls the shelves "the gates of Antarctica."Although the shelves float, they're still connected to the mainland. The point at which the ice shelf is no longer supported by bedrock is called the "grounding line."A team from JPL has been studying that grounding line in several places along the edge of the West Antarctic ice sheet. They used radar to look beneath the ice. In particular, overflights have targeted ice shelves along the West Antarctic ice sheet known as the Amundsen Sea Embayment.They've found that the ice is melting faster than they've ever seen. The researchers believe the cause is warm water circulating beneath the ice shelf. The melting was most pronounced from 2002 to 2009. (The influx of warmer water to the region stalled recently, and the rate of melting seems to have slowed somewhat.)Khazendar says the more the bottom of the shelves melt, the more ice is exposed to warm water. "It becomes a runaway process," he explains, "which makes it unstable."Where's the warmer water coming from? The team, whose findings appear in the journal Nature Communications, points to global warming that's heating up the oceans. There's been a spate of research lately showing that Antarctic ice is melting faster than previously thought — and raising global sea levels.Khazendar says the melting process appears to be irreversible. Polar scientists fear that at some point, the shelves will collapse and Antarctica's glaciers will flow into the sea. As to whether and when that might happen?"The simple answer is we don't know. And that's the scary part," Khazendar says.
Read the original post: http://kuow.org/
Climate-change ruling for Arctic seals has ramifications across U.S., California
This 2006 photo from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows a bearded seal in Kotzebue, Alaska. Michael Cameron AP
In a ruling that has ramifications for land-use and water policy across the United States and California, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that scientists can draw on long-range climate projections to determine whether a species should be listed as threatened.On Monday, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2014 ruling made by a lower court in Alaska. The lower court determined federal regulators were relying on speculation and conjecture to determine that bearded seal populations would lose so much of their Arctic sea-ice habitat to a warming climate that they would be endangered by 2095. Noting that the sparse seal population is spread through a vast area of the Arctic making seals difficult to count, the lower court described the agency’s findings as “arbitrary and capricious.”But in Monday’s ruling, the appellate court ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service used the best available science and climate models to list the seals as threatened. Moreover, an agency “need not wait until a species’ habitat is destroyed to determine that habitat loss may facilitate extinction,” Judge Richard A. Paez wrote for the three-judge panel.The ruling was hailed by environmentalists and research groups, who say it allows agencies to take immediate action to protect species in the face of climate change. The ruling could spur new protections for numerous California species, from the bunny-like American pika to salmon and other fish under threat from droughts and warming rivers induced by climate change.“The implications for California, and frankly, the entire nation, are profound: This court ruling recognizes that climate change is a real threat, that climate science and models are scientifically sound, and that the Endangered Species Act requires we use information on future risks to protect species today, rather than waiting for the downward spiral of extinction to begin,” Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute said in an email.Conservative and business groups, however, decried the ruling as a dangerous precedent. They noted that it follows another recent 9th Circuit ruling that protected polar bears facing habitat loss from climate change, and said similar arguments could be used to limit logging and mining in California.“The takeaway from these cases is that the courts simply will not question scientific evidence offered by an agency in the same way that a court would question that same evidence were it offered in a dispute between private parties,” Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation said in an email.The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned federal regulators to protect the seals in 2008. Groups fighting the petition included the state of Alaska and the American Petroleum Institute.
Read the original post: http://www.sacbee.com/
Obama's new ocean preserves are bad for the environment and for people
FILE - President Barack Obama speaks at the Our Ocean, One Future conference at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
By Ray Hilborn Who wants to save the oceans? Short answer: everyone, especially politicians. A less frequently asked question is whether their high-profile efforts always work.Right now, world leaders seem to want to see who can declare the biggest marine protected areas, or MPAs, in their territory. MPAs are kinds of national parks for sea life that extends from ocean surface to ocean floor. Commercial fishing and other undersea ventures are banned in them.They are popping up everywhere. In August, President Obama announced one in the western Pacific Ocean that is 50 per cent bigger than Texas. In September he created another, more modest one off the coast of New England.Britain announced yet another MPA in September around St. Helena Island in the south Pacific. It is half the size of the Lone Star State.In fact, the MPA movement has become a religion with accepted articles of faith that more and bigger are better. This current obsession is bad for the oceans, bad for the global environment, and bad for people.Consider what the imposition of an MPA can do to the economy and livelihood of local fishers, who are unable to easily pick up and move elsewhere. Some fishermen in New England are warning that they could go out of business as a result of the new Atlantic marine preserve.Large MPAs are also bad for people because reducing ocean fish production by itself will mean less high quality, nutritious food available for the poorest people in the world and less employment for fishing-dependent communitiesPolitical leaders argue they are protecting the oceans with MPAs, but mostly they aren’t. The major threats to ocean health and biodiversity, including global warming, ocean acidification, oil spills, floating masses of plastics, pollutant run-off from land, and illegal fishing--all are not addressed by this conservation measure.Ocean preserve advocates emphasize that about one-third of global fish stocks are overfished, and use that as a reason for ever-larger MPA designations. But there is also no evidence that MPAs actually increase the abundance of fish outside of the reserves, one of the chief motives proponents invoke to push for them.MPA advocates like to use the analogy of a fish bank, and it works up to a point. Certainly, fishery abundance rises inside well-managed areas that are closed to commercial fishing.But without other measures to address fishing effort, the same commercial boats that used to ply the newly protected waters can simply move across the boundary, increasing fishing pressure outside the MPA, although at increased cost. And fish don’t recognize MPA boundaries. They move beyond them.In truth, some MPAs can provide biodiversity benefits and increases in fish harvests in places that lack more comprehensive fisheries management.Unfortunately those are the same places where MPAs are also often difficult or impossible to enforce, due to the cost of surveillance and of any legal efforts to bring offenders to justice.A bigger fact is that in U.S. waters, fish stocks are increasing, and overfishing is declining rapidly, without a significant number of MPAs.Why? For one thing, we already have a myriad of well-enforced laws that protect fish stock health and marine biodiversity very well, through a science-based management system. They do it better than simply closing off large sections of the ocean.Around the world we see fish stocks increasing in abundance when fisheries management is effectively applied, without MPAs playing a significant role. Fish stocks in the U.S., Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia have all been shown to rebuild from overfishing through traditional fisheries management -- we don’t need MPAs to rebuild fish stocks.In reality, redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars spent on MPA advocacy towards other threats to the ocean, or to improving fisheries management globally, would provide much more comprehensive and proactive protection.The MPA advocacy movement needs to embrace the reality that closing ever-larger areas of the ocean to fishing, when it happens, should be guided by clearly stated objectives, independent scientific evaluation of alternatives, and public consultation on the impacts on people.MPAs should be established where the problems are, not where it is politically expedient. A race to see who has the biggest or the most is running in the wrong direction.Ray Hilborn is a Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He leads several research projects on the status of global fish stocks and coordinates the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database, the largest repository of data on the abundance of fish stocks.
Read the original post: http://www.foxnews.com/
Letters: MPA Proposal Off California Is Yet Another End-Around US Commercial Fishery Management
— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —
Copyright © 2016 Seafoodnews.com
SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews] Opinion by Larry Collins - September 20, 2016
Collins is president of the San Francisco Cab Boat Owners’ Association and vice president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. He also manages the San Francisco Community Fishing Association. Collins' letter is a response to a proposal by California Representatives Sam Farr and Ted Lieu to establish the California Seamounts and Ridges National Marine Conservation Area Designation and Management Act (HR 5797). The legislation invokes the Antiquities Act to set up an MPA to protect seamounts, ridges and banks in federal waters off the California coastline. This designation is another example of how special interest groups are able to sway federal legislators to protect large swatches of ocean waters at the expense of the commercial fishing industry without sound scientific research. Other commercial fishing groups and their backers have already argued how MPA designations are undermining existing environmental protections already in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Dear Seafood News,Do you know that you own the fish in the sea? Yes, you do.We call fish a “public trust resource” for a reason. You, as a member of the public, own those fish in the sea, the water they swim in, and the habitats they call home.I’m a professional seafood harvester. I offer a service by catching fish and making it accessible to you so you can concentrate on other productive endeavors. As part of my job, I comply with a dense set of rules to ensure the sustainability of the service I provide, and of the seafood at your dinner table.Sustainability is the concept that Mother Nature can provide for us indefinitely, so long as we steward her carefully. In fishermen’s case, stewardship means leaving enough fish in the ocean so I can get them another day, and doing my best to minimize impacts on habitat.It’s the role of the state and federal governments to make sure I achieve those goals. And together we do a great job of making sure your fisheries are sustainable. Overfishing is virtually non-existent on the West Coast, and the types of gear we’re allowed to use are already tightly regulated to protect habitat features.So it’s confounding that non-fishermen who would claim to promote the sustainability of your oceans are actually working to shut your fisheries down.U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Central Coast, recently introduced HR 5797, a bill that would permanently end several forms of fishing at seven ocean ridges and seamounts off the California coast. The justification for the closures is protection of creatures and habitat features on the seafloor.As a commercial fisherman, I support protecting the environment from human threats that will hurt our shared marine resources. Oil exploration and mineral mining could cause irreparable damage at these sites.But fishing threats to these seafloor resources are almost nonexistent.The fishing community uses hooks and nets to harvest your albacore tuna, swordfish and sea bass at these sites. None of those gears come remotely near the ocean floor.Moreover, bottom trawling, which does involve seafloor contact, is already prohibited at the seamounts.Congressman Farr’s bill would use the Antiquities Act to permanently end harvesting of your fish at the seamounts. It’s an end-run around the normal fisheries management process, which has been successfully carried out by the Pacific Fishery Management Council for 40 years.The normal course requires rigorous scientific analysis and public input, procedures that only improve the management fish and how fishermen go about retrieving them.HR 5797 backers must want to avoid scientists and stakeholders when it comes to taking your fish away from you.You should know that it’s already hard to bring home your seafood these days. Drought and water politics are decimating your iconic California King salmon. An algal bloom this past year forced the unprecedented closure of your crab fishery.But while fishermen are going out of business and infrastructure is disappearing, I’ll be the first to tell you that proactively protecting your ocean is the only way to ensure your access to the best, most sustainable seafood in the world.Our oceans can provide us an unending supply of healthful, sustainable food if we carefully articulate the “what” “how” and “why” we manage these resources.HR 5797 is not a careful articulation. It’s a robbery by blunt force trauma of fish, family dinners, backyard barbecues and memories that belong to you.Congressman Farr needs to leave fisheries management to the fisheries managers. It’s the only way to sustain your fish and your ocean into the future.Larry Collins
Subscribe to SeafoodNews.com 1-732-240-5330 | Copyright © 2016 Seafoodnews.com
Commentary: Leave fishery management to the pros
Vincent Pham, who owns the Five Star fishing boat, lowers a crab pot to Rudy Ziess, right, at the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor . Photo: Kevin Johnson, Santa Cruz Sentinel
Do you know that you own the fish in the sea? Yes, you do.We call fish a “public trust resource” for a reason. You, as a member of the public, own those fish in the sea, the water they swim in, and the habitats they call home.I’m a professional seafood harvester. I offer a service by catching fish and making it accessible to you so you can concentrate on other productive endeavors. As part of my job, I comply with a dense set of rules to ensure the sustainability of the service I provide, and of the seafood at your dinner table.Sustainability is the concept that Mother Nature can provide for us indefinitely, so long as we steward her carefully. In fishermen’s case, stewardship means leaving enough fish in the ocean so I can get them another day, and doing my best to minimize impacts on habitat.It’s the role of the state and federal governments to make sure I achieve those goals. And together we do a great job of making sure your fisheries are sustainable. Overfishing is virtually non-existent on the West Coast, and the types of gear we’re allowed to use are already tightly regulated to protect habitat features.So it’s confounding that non-fishermen who would claim to promote the sustainability of your oceans are actually working to shut your fisheries down.U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Central Coast, recently introduced HR 5797, a bill that would permanently end several forms of fishing at seven ocean ridges and seamounts off the California coast. The justification for the closures is protection of creatures and habitat features on the seafloor.As a commercial fisherman, I support protecting the environment from human threats that will hurt our shared marine resources. Oil exploration and mineral mining could cause irreparable damage at these sites.But fishing threats to these seafloor resources are almost nonexistent.The fishing community uses hooks and nets to harvest your albacore tuna, swordfish and sea bass at these sites. None of those gears come remotely near the ocean floor.Moreover, bottom trawling, which does involve seafloor contact, is already prohibited at the seamounts.Congressman Farr’s bill would use the Antiquities Act to permanently end harvesting of your fish at the seamounts. It’s an end-run around the normal fisheries management process, which has been successfully carried out by the Pacific Fishery Management Council for 40 years.The normal course requires rigorous scientific analysis and public input, procedures that only improve the management fish and how fishermen go about retrieving them.HR 5797 backers must want to avoid scientists and stakeholders when it comes to taking your fish away from you.You should know that it’s already hard to bring home your seafood these days. Drought and water politics are decimating your iconic California King salmon. An algal bloom this past year forced the unprecedented closure of your crab fishery.But while fishermen are going out of business and infrastructure is disappearing, I’ll be the first to tell you that proactively protecting your ocean is the only way to ensure your access to the best, most sustainable seafood in the world.Our oceans can provide us an unending supply of healthful, sustainable food if we carefully articulate the “what” “how” and “why” we manage these resources.HR 5797 is not a careful articulation. It’s a robbery by blunt force trauma of fish, family dinners, backyard barbecues and memories that belong to you.Congressman Farr needs to leave fisheries management to the fisheries managers. It’s the only way to sustain your fish and your ocean into the future.Larry Collins is president of the San Francisco Cab Boat Owners’ Association and vice president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. He also manages the San Francisco Community Fishing Association.
Read the original post: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/
RELEASE: Ten Years after Magnuson-Stevens Act, U.S. Fisheries are the Best Managed in the World
Washington, D.C. — United States fisheries are the most sustainably managed in the world. Critical legislation has governed federal fisheries for the past four decades, and the enactment of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, or MSRA, 10 years ago provided science-based management measures that have maintained the health of the U.S. ocean ecology and economy.However, it is time to think about what comes next for the U.S. fisheries industry. The Center for American Progress has released a report looking at the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and offering science-based recommendations to maintain and improve the health of U.S. fisheries over the next 10 years. The report was released at an event on the legacy of the MSRA featuring former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco; Maria Damanaki, global managing director for oceans at the Nature Conservancy; and Margaret Spring, vice president of conservation and science at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.“It is no fluke that U.S. fisheries are among the best managed in the world,” said Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at CAP and co-author of the report. “The success of our science-based fishery management regime that has evolved over four decades of legislative oversight has made the resource far more sustainable while sustaining coastal economies. Now in the 21st century, federal fisheries face daunting challenges, including ocean warming and acidification stemming from climate change. The MSRA and its predecessors have made U.S. fisheries the healthiest in the world but it is now time to update these efforts to ensure their sustainability into the next century.”The paper makes the following recommendations:
- Regulators should work to account for changes in fishery dynamics that fishermen around the country are already experiencing as a result of climate change, including ocean acidification and warming.
- Ecosystem-based management should be prioritized as a tool to facilitate a holistic fisheries management.
- To increase accountability and data collection, NOAA should aggressively pursue the development and deployment of electronic monitoring systems for fishing vessels.
- Congress should appropriate additional funding for ocean observation and baseline research to facilitate data collection and stock assessment science.
- Using the MSRA’s strong international provisions, the Obama administration should finalize regulations aimed at curtailing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing abroad.
- U.S. leaders and government officials should press the International Maritime Organization to expand application of its vessel monitoring and registration standards to include all fishing vessels operating on the high seas.
Click here to read the report.Click here to watch the live stream of the event.