Oh, Noes, Hotcoldwetdry Could Mean Less Fish


(Time) It’s easy to forget that global warming doesn’t just refer to the rising temperature of the air. Climate change is having an enormous, if less well understood, impact on the oceans, which already absorb far more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere. Like so much of what goes on in the vast depths that cover more than two-thirds of our planet’s surface, the effect of climate change on the oceans remains a black box—albeit one that scientists are working to illuminate.

And something like 96% of CO2 released yearly comes from natural processes, including the oceans, which release 16 times the amount all of Mankind does.

Here’s one way: fisheries. Wild fish remain a major source of protein for humanity—as well as a major source of reality TV shows—and for some coastal communities, fish mean even more. Scientists aren’t clear about what climate change, including the warming of the oceans, will have on wild fisheries. As Mark Payne of the National Institute of Aquatic Resources writes in a new piece in Nature, ocean researchers “tend to view climate change as a dark cloud on the horizon: potentially problematic in the future, but not of immediate concern”—especially compared to the much more pressing threat of simple overfishing.

Oh, so we don’t really know. Gotcha.

But now a new study in Nature makes the case that climate change—including the warming of the oceans—is already having a direct impact on global fisheries. Researchers led by William Cheung at the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Centre created a new model that took the known temperature preferences of different species of commercial fish and compared those figures to global catch numbers from around the world. They found that species comfortable in warmer waters have been replacing fish that are more accustomed to cool temperatures. That means climate change is altering the makeup of fisheries around the world—and that could be particularly bad for the tropics, which may eventually become too hot for even for fish that tend to prefer it on the warmer side.

First, fish evolved in much, much warmer waters. Second, this in no way proves anthropogenic causation. Third, I love how Warmists become flat Earthers and discard Darwinism for the sake of their pet cult-like hypothesis. Fourth, another frigging model. These people are nuts. Oh, and fish seemed to have survived just fine during the previous warm periods. And an ice age beforehand. And they still refuse to practice what they preach.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Oh, Noes, Hotcoldwetdry Could Mean Less Fish”

  1. Flooded_Gumballs says:

    If only fish could swim. If only…..

  2. Mike G. says:

    I’ll think about that as I eat my Almond Crusted Mauhi Mauhi.

  3. A nice Grouper steak slathered in a spicy chipotle sauce sounds good.

  4. Mike G. says:

    Yeah, that sounds good, but have the Mauhi Mauhi. Tomorrow night, it’s 1 1/2″ thick Rib Eyes on the grill.

  5. john says:

    well of course some fish will survive Teach, and in fact some may well do better with warmer water . BUT others will not. Lobster has declined 90% of the Jersey coast. Scallops are losing their southern most grounds off Virginia. That Mahi Mahi probably came from Central America. Take a look at the prices on our native cold water fish cod, haddock, whitefish et al. These are the fish you ate but now sometimes I see cod at 20 dollars. But still local New England fisherman can not make a living as the stocks are so low. Anyone who thinks the ocean is in good shape hasn’t spent much time on it. You probably think that the origin of fish is the grocery store. I also see NOTHING that indicates that people who believe in Global warming now disbelieve in evolution. Teach ask your local commercial fisherman about how they are doing economically. Local fisherman will continue to suffer as fish patterns change. Just as farmers will. If the fish move north it will make life more difficult for the fisherman. Of course the “elites” will always be able to eat fish, imported or local.

  6. Flooded_Gumballs says:

    Wow john, you sure know how to jump off that Evolution Ship real fast when you want to. Are you now a Creationist that you hate and despise so much?

    Do you really think that waters that have warmed and cooled over the last eons are only now killing aquatic species? Where are the bodies if that is true?

    Could it be john that the reason the fishermen are having harder times finding fish and the price is going up is because it is harder to find those fish? BECAUSE they have practiced overfishing?!!? Have you sat in the meetings where they discuss the size of fish stocks and the potential harvest amounts and then set the seasons around the catch limits? I have. I have developed those seasons.

    Even when fish stocks are disastrously low, people still demand to go out fishing. We have to oblige them. Though we are able to curtail where, when and how they are able to catch those limits. If the fish aren’t around to spawn and reproduce, there won’t be more around next year.

    But then, you dont want to talk about specific reasons do you. You only want to find a way to attack humanity and America in general. If that means flipping and flopping all around logic and your senseless adherence to “CO2 Is Killing The Planet” meme, then you’ll do it. you don’t mind looking the fool so long as you are able to parrot the party line.

Pirate's Cove