Why are environmentalists blaming the California shark attack on global warming?

Question

It seems like anything that happens is being blamed on global warming and that humans are responsible. Don't these people know that the temperatures have been constantly changing throughout history, sometimes warmer and sometimes colder?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange

Answer 1

Supposedly, colder waters from various ice flows and glaciers had leeched into the warmer waters of the pacific, causing sharks (and various other specious of marine life) to migrate towards warmer waters... however, i would agree with you in that, yes the global temps are constantly changing. This is just a on the warmer end of the temp swing.

Answer 2

I believe what you saying.I always wonder why people get surprised when anyone gets in the ocean and they get bitten by a shark.HELLO sharks live in the ocean ! They eat meat.Humans are meat. Why are you surprised and why is it always such a big story?

I understand your point and not trying to go away from it but i just dont understand the shock when someone gets attacted by a shark to begin with.

Also far more people get struck by lighting than get attacked by a shark.The media beats anything to death if its not a common event.

Answer 3

because they don't know any better.

Hey i farted, blame that on global warming...

Answer 4

What we can say with some confidence is that the availability of fish in the oceans world wide had been on the decline, and with that decline has come a shortage of food for sharks.

The shortage of fish may be driven by the same events as are driving global warming, and it may be partly a direct result of the warming. But it does appear to be coincident, so a legitimate area for investigation as cause.

Accepting that global warming may contribute is a bit different from accepting that this is caused by human activity. Even if it is not caused by human activity, some changes will result from warming.

But so what! We needed to trim human populations did we not?

Answer 5

Because the earth has been cooling and scientists are saying it will cool to at least  2015 because of the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

The wackos are throwing everything they can at this fear mongering hoax because they are being proven wrong by nature.

Afraid of their reputations being forever chastised (which they should be) and the easy flow of tax payers money into their hands keeps these alarmist's blaming everything and anything on global warming.

Answer 6

What they say is that the number of shark attacks is proportional to the time people spend in the water.  You mean people go to the beach more when its warm?  Absurd!  WHACKO ENVIRONMENTALISTS AGAIN!  Seriously, it also says "Another contributory factor to the location of shark attacks could be global warming and rising sea temperatures. 'You'll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn't in the past with some regularity,' "  That's a known predicted effect of Global Warming that is being observed all over the world.  (pesky whackos!)  I do think the comment about the disappearance of whole populations of fish may be leading sharks to seek other food is a good observation.  What?  They look for food when they're hungry?  Absurd!  Pesky whackos!

Answer 7

Because they are largely foolish individuals just shooting in the dark.

Answer 8

An interesting headline, pity no one seems to have actually read the article (including the reporter) global warming is listed about 4th as a contributing factor behind increased numbers of people in the water, more seals and over fishing.

Answer 9

If you were a shark, you'd blame humans also...

Answer 10

It is only a matter of time for them to  blame it on global warming or President George Bush.  I just wonder how long before they blame all of these midwest earthquakes and tremors on global warming or President Bush.

Answer 11

ha! oh yes and cow flatulence also , people are really going over board

Answer 12

BECAUSE THEIR TO LAZY TO HELP IN DELETING GLOBAL WARMING, SO THEY BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE SAME. REMEMBER ONE THING WE DONT LIVE IN A OCEAN, THEY DO.

Answer 13

Weird, the title's reference to global warming doesn't seem to have much to do with the story:

'The one thing that's affecting shark attacks more than anything else is human activity,' said Dr George Burgess of Florida University, a shark expert who maintains the database. 'As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation. And as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites.'

Sloppy journalism perhaps, but what makes you think that the author is an environmentalist?

You're right that the climate has changed a lot in the past.  That's why scientists have so much evidence that greenhouse gases were involved in past warmings, and is the primary cause this time.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Co...

He says his carbon dioxide feedback hypothesis explains why the strongest cycles of ice response are not in correspondence with those in the orbital cycles.

Ruddiman concludes (as Milankovitch proposed) that ice sheets are initially driven by the Sun, but then the ice takes control of carbon dioxide changes, producing its own positive feedback (the amplifying effect) at the 41,000-year cycle.

Ice build-up continued until unusually large solar radiation peaks triggered rapid melting at intervals of 85,000 to 115,000 years. Although solar radiation peaks were the initial trigger for these melting episodes, most of the ice was removed by feedbacks in the climate system, and CO2 feedback was the largest of these.

"The origin of the ice-age cycles has been a major mystery in studies of past climates, and some scientists felt the answer must be very complex," Ruddiman said. "Yet this hypothesis is quite simple, requiring only the Sun, the carbon dioxide feedback, and a gradual cooling. The prominent role proposed for carbon dioxide is consistent with its likely effect on future climate."

Answer 14

jb61 You said it.!!!!!!!!!!!!