If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nature World News)   Good news, everybody. There are 10x the number of mid-depth fish in the sea as we thought. That means there is a possible mate for everybody, except Zoidberg, who will die alone in a non-Dumpster brand garbage bin. And of course, TotalFarkers   (natureworldnews.com) divider line 53
    More: Spiffy, Zoidberg, water column, global ocean, Spanish National Research Council, Nature Communications, garbage bins  
•       •       •

4395 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 4:57 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 02:24:23 PM
Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

This is where the way the media reports science doesn't do science any favors. John Q. Teatard reads this and thinks 'SEE!! A DIRECT CONTRADICTION!! ITS  PROOFOF TEH LIEBRUL CONSPIRACY!!', not 'huh...ain't it funny how science can produce drastically differing results in just a few days? I guess we need more data!'

/this is very good news
 
2014-02-08 03:05:22 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-08 03:12:35 PM
So have we reached peak fish or not?
 
2014-02-08 03:26:09 PM
Not quite my idea of a trophy catch but, if you land one, have it stuffed and mounted over your mantel.

images.natureworldnews.com

/ Looks like a marine version of Gonzo the Muppet.
 
2014-02-08 04:57:15 PM
UNLEASH THE TARTAR SAUCE!
 
2014-02-08 04:59:35 PM
Imagine that staring at you from under a bun at McDonald's during Lent.
 
2014-02-08 05:01:21 PM
Oh, there's plenty of fish left but they're mostly ugly fish.
 
2014-02-08 05:01:36 PM

whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?


Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.
 
2014-02-08 05:03:06 PM

whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

This is where the way the media reports science doesn't do science any favors. John Q. Teatard reads this and thinks 'SEE!! A DIRECT CONTRADICTION!! ITS  PROOFOF TEH LIEBRUL CONSPIRACY!!', not 'huh...ain't it funny how science can produce drastically differing results in just a few days? I guess we need more data!'

/this is very good news


I thought it proved how liberals love to hype catastrophic events despite science.
 
2014-02-08 05:05:10 PM
You don't want to end up old and lonely like ZOIDBERRRRGGG!! *cries*  You were saying?
 
2014-02-08 05:05:50 PM

Boojum2k: whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.


Oh, aren't you clever.
 
2014-02-08 05:06:29 PM

Boojum2k: whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-08 05:08:50 PM
fc02.deviantart.net
 
2014-02-08 05:11:58 PM
Nooo, Zoidberg found that one girl in the last season. The one without a nose.

/spoilers
 
2014-02-08 05:12:37 PM
Did anyone actually look at the study? There's a lot of "could haves" and "maybes" there, as part of a study funded by Saudi Arabia and based on indirect observations.
 
2014-02-08 05:20:49 PM
Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.
 
2014-02-08 05:23:27 PM

JasonOfOrillia: So have we reached peak fish or not?


Lord, I hope not. I'm still reeling over Peek Freans.

/nobody understood just how serious they were
 
2014-02-08 05:23:36 PM
Look like Peak Fish was a myth after all!
 
2014-02-08 05:26:50 PM
I'm too tired to read the article, but based on the headline I have a question.

Does this mean there were 10x the number of fish 30 years ago?

Is it just a matter of relabeling the y-axis on a graph showing fish population throuoghout the years?

And nobody told me about this fish extinction by 2040 either.  I may have to start hoarding cans of anchovies.  They might be valuable one day.
 
2014-02-08 05:31:06 PM
www.doctorwhoreviews.co.uk

And soon they'll all need bicycles

www.interbike.com
 
2014-02-08 05:33:07 PM
tesathome.com

So . . . good news?
 
2014-02-08 05:35:04 PM

That Guy...From That Show!: Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.


...fish removing CO2?

I was thinking "oh, great, that'll mean 10x more dead fish washing up after they die from ocean acidification."
 
2014-02-08 05:35:17 PM
All I care about is that we're expecting record numbers of Spring Chinook in about a month or so and I'm itching to try out my new salmon gear. I've never caught a Chinook before, so it's going to be fun.
 
2014-02-08 05:35:44 PM

Boojum2k: whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.


i60.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-08 05:39:39 PM

fusillade762: Boojum2k: whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.

[i60.tinypic.com image 720x720]


Exactly!
 
2014-02-08 05:41:24 PM

That Guy...From That Show!: Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.


A poor troll using even worse science, but someone might actually believe it...

The fish have always been there; we just discovered them recently. One piece of the carbon cycle is more significant than we thought, but the rates at which atmospheric carbon and oceanic acidity are increasing haven't changed because of this discovery. What has changed is that the effects of depleted fish populations can be expected to be more severe than previously forecast, the forecast having to be adjusted to account for the loss of more carbon-shiatting fish than we previously thought existed.
 
2014-02-08 05:42:56 PM

MyRandomName: I thought it proved how liberals love to hype catastrophic events despite science.


You know, the fisheries that provide the sealife we actually eat are still collapsing. That isn't contradicted by this study.

Still think we shouldn't do anything about it?
 
2014-02-08 06:07:33 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: That Guy...From That Show!: Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.

A poor troll using even worse science, but someone might actually believe it...

The fish have always been there; we just discovered them recently. One piece of the carbon cycle is more significant than we thought, but the rates at which atmospheric carbon and oceanic acidity are increasing haven't changed because of this discovery. What has changed is that the effects of depleted fish populations can be expected to be more severe than previously forecast, the forecast having to be adjusted to account for the loss of more carbon-shiatting fish than we previously thought existed.


EXACTLY.  Before this the global warming deniers argued that our evidence about there being less fish wasn't valid because there were thought to be more fish.  But now, we've got em because we say that more fish than less means it's worse anyway.   No matter which, less fish or more fish, the deniers lose.
 
2014-02-08 06:22:27 PM

That Guy...From That Show!: common sense is an oxymoron: That Guy...From That Show!: Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.

A poor troll using even worse science, but someone might actually believe it...

The fish have always been there; we just discovered them recently. One piece of the carbon cycle is more significant than we thought, but the rates at which atmospheric carbon and oceanic acidity are increasing haven't changed because of this discovery. What has changed is that the effects of depleted fish populations can be expected to be more severe than previously forecast, the forecast having to be adjusted to account for the loss of more carbon-shiatting fish than we previously thought existed.

EXACTLY.  Before this the global warming deniers argued that our evidence about there being less fish wasn't valid because there were thought to be more fish.  But now, we've got em because we say that more fish than less means it's worse anyway.   No matter which, less fish or more fish, the deniers lose.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2014-02-08 06:25:42 PM

a particular individual: [fc02.deviantart.net image 850x577]


AMAZING! it sounded just like the professor.
tell me, how does it work?
 
2014-02-08 06:56:15 PM

ArcadianRefugee: JasonOfOrillia: So have we reached peak fish or not?

Lord, I hope not. I'm still reeling over Peek Freans.

/nobody understood just how serious they were


You mean LIKE THESE:


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 06:59:23 PM

JasonOfOrillia: ArcadianRefugee: JasonOfOrillia: So have we reached peak fish or not?

Lord, I hope not. I'm still reeling over Peek Freans.

/nobody understood just how serious they were

You mean LIKE THESE:


[img.fark.net image 388x519]


Holy crap! They still make those!

/childhood flashback
 
2014-02-08 07:12:03 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Holy crap! They still make those!

/childhood flashback


If you are in the UK then I think you are SOL.  They're around North America, apparently.
 
2014-02-08 07:42:50 PM

Boojum2k: whistleridge: Wait, I'm confused. So does this still mean we're on track for salt-water fish extinction by 2040, or not?

Probably not. The nice thing about science is that when you come across evidence disproving a hypothesis, you discard the hypothesis, not the evidence. Religion works the other way around.


Let me guess: 15 years old and hates his dad.
 
2014-02-08 07:46:10 PM

dbirchall: That Guy...From That Show!: Suckit global warming deniers, now that we suddenly have many more fish removing CO2 from the atmosphere you'll see this explains why what we're saying is true because of weather changes that will keep happening.

...fish removing CO2?

I was thinking "oh, great, that'll mean 10x more dead fish washing up after they die from ocean acidification."


Nah, they'll sink to the bottom and become gasoline for whatever replaces whatever replaces us.
 
2014-02-08 07:46:42 PM

2.bp.blogspot.com

Fishy Fish, where is the Fish?

 
2014-02-08 07:58:45 PM

SnowPeas: a particular individual: [fc02.deviantart.net image 850x577]

AMAZING! it sounded just like the professor.
tell me, how does it work?


It works just fine.
 
2014-02-08 08:02:55 PM
Mesopelagic fishes live between the 200 and 1,000 meters (656 and 3281 feet) deep in the ocean.  img.fark.netimg.fark.netimg.fark.net
Eat or be eaten, that is the question.
 
2014-02-08 08:08:53 PM
That would be good if we thought there were only ten million fish in the sea.

That would be bad if we thought there were only TEN fish in the sea.

Saying "There are 10x as many things as we thought" is irrelevant unless you know how many things we thought there were in the first place. Also: "There are ten times as many fish as we thought!" YAY! "...but they're all male so we're still screwed." "OH SHIAT" also doesn't do us any good either.
 
2014-02-08 08:10:50 PM
Yay, let's go smelting!
 
2014-02-08 08:13:51 PM

Chach: Let me guess: 15 years old and hates his dad.


Did this make sense to you?
 
2014-02-08 08:27:55 PM

Jovimon: Mesopelagic fishes live between the 200 and 1,000 meters (656 and 3281 feet) deep in the ocean. 
Eat or be eaten, that is the question.


I think one of those might not be a real fish.
 
2014-02-08 08:32:23 PM

Boojum2k: Chach: Let me guess: 15 years old and hates his dad.

Did this make sense to you?


Made perfect sense to me.
 
2014-02-08 08:38:36 PM

Jovimon: Eat or be eaten, that is the question.


I"m pretty sure that third picture isn't a photograph.
 
2014-02-08 08:52:40 PM

Son of Thunder: Boojum2k: Chach: Let me guess: 15 years old and hates his dad.

Did this make sense to you?

Made perfect sense to me.


Still waiting. . .
 
2014-02-08 09:54:45 PM

gameshowhost: Yay, let's go smelting!


Er, okay....?
 
2014-02-08 11:23:53 PM
We've fished out 95% of the large fish in the top layer (0 to 200 meters) of the ocean. Our estimates of how many fish are in the meso-pelagic layer was based on trawler catches, which are biased because a lot of mess-pelagic fish can escape from trawler nets because they "see them coming" with motion sensors and take evasive action. This is good news because we have not yet fished out the middle depths and because they are more resilient than we thought.

(Not that we aren't trying to fish them out too. Orange roughy, for example, is a mid-ocean fish. They were believed to rare and thus likely to collapse soon, but are probably more numerous than we thought.)

Fish, whales and other animals that dive during the day take water with them and help to mix the top waters with the lower waters. They also feed near the surface and take down carbon in the form of their bodies. This is one way the oceans have been buffering CO2 levels. Rather than making the oceans more acidic (which happens when the CO2 is absorbed directly by the water, becoming carbonic acid), this form of absorption is a type of sequestration because as the fish die they sink even deeper and take the carbon to the bottom layer of the ocean where food is even more scarce. It gradually ends up in the sediment and is slowly turned to limestone.

This helps to explain why CO2 levels are lower in the atmosphere than our emissions alone would cause them to be, and also may be another reason why the last 16 years have not seen the same rise in CO2 and temperatures that the previous twenty or thirty years saw.

Rather than contradicting each other, scientific studies refine our understanding of the world, but poor science writing and spin by denialists, anti-science lobbyists and others will attach themselves to apparent contradictions and partial or inaccurate understandings of the facts.

As we understand the interconnectedness of the ecology better, we have good news and bad news because we learn of mechanisms that mitigate damage while we learn that we are damaging even those mechanisms.

In this case, it's good that the mesopelagic fish stocks are sturdier than we thought because as it was, we seemed to be fishing them out an even greater rate than we fished out the upper oceans (in about one century), almost causing the extinction of whales (still many species of which are endangered) and reducing the size of fish we catch from huge to something a child could reel in.

Our scientific ignorance constant grows less through such studies, but some people willfully surround themselves with ignorance the way a disturbed slime hagfish surrounds itself with a bucket's worth of slime. Denialism is part wishful thinking and part aggressive propaganda to defend errors and crimes against criticism. Every industry spends millions to generate positive "news" and to create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Denial). The tobacco industry is the model and the source of much of today's denial. In fact, it was a tobacco executive who created the acronym FUD and who taught the practice to many others.

Science is one area where it really pays to think things through. Yes, there is a lot of BS as University departments issue press releases, and journalists who are hostile to facts and logic savage them, but most of the BS is coming from governments and corporations. The politicians are easily captured by Big Money as are some of the scientists. Most scientists, like most journalists, like to believe in the pure and honest pursuit of truth, and many of them do their best, but there's a large opposition to the acceptance of scientific facts and theories consisting of religion, political ideologies, and so forth.

Conservative religion (creationists, for example) are joined in the trashing of science by left wing religion and ideologies (feminism, radicalism, even environmentalism of the political kind), so it's not all one-sided. But on the whole, you have to be skeptical and very thoughtful to place a science article and the science behind it in the proper context and evaluate its accuracy, importance and meaning correctly.
 
2014-02-08 11:25:11 PM

Prey4reign: Not quite my idea of a trophy catch but, if you land one, have it stuffed and mounted over your mantel.

[images.natureworldnews.com image 400x266]

/ Looks like a marine version of Gonzo the Muppet.


It's the feared narwhale guppy. It can give you a tiny pricking sensation if it rams you at full speed.
 
2014-02-09 12:34:00 AM

Ecobuckeye: Jovimon: Mesopelagic fishes live between the 200 and 1,000 meters (656 and 3281 feet) deep in the ocean. 
Eat or be eaten, that is the question.

I think one of those might not be a real fish.


But it looks cool!
 
2014-02-09 01:46:24 AM
Personally, based on its long history of overfishing, I'm not sure we should trust any study of fish numbers emanating from Spain. It's just too convenient for them to show that there are more fish to be caught than currently believed.  How long before they develop a way to catch the biomass at these depths ?
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report