UPDATE2: To see what is fishy about this story, see Bob Tisdale’s update here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/16/washington-post-headline-worlds-fish-have-been-moving-to-cooler-waters-for-decades-study-finds/
From the University of British Columbia
‘Fish thermometer’ reveals long-standing, global impact of climate change
Climate change has been impacting global fisheries for the past four decades by driving species towards cooler, deeper waters, according to University of British Columbia scientists.
In a Nature study published this week, UBC researchers used temperature preferences of fish and other marine species as a sort of “thermometer” to assess effects of climate change on the world’s oceans between 1970 and 2006.
They found that global fisheries catches were increasingly dominated by warm-water species as a result of fish migrating towards the poles in response to rising ocean temperatures.
“One way for marine animals to respond to ocean warming is by moving to cooler regions,” says the study’s lead author William Cheung, an assistant professor at UBC’s Fisheries Centre. “As a result, places like New England on the northeast coast of the U.S. saw new species typically found in warmer waters, closer to the tropics.
“Meanwhile in the tropics, climate change meant fewer marine species and reduced catches, with serious implications for food security.”
“We’ve been talking about climate change as if it’s something that’s going to happen in the distant future – our study shows that it has been affecting our fisheries and oceans for decades,” says Daniel Pauly, principal investigator with UBC’s Sea Around Us Project and the study’s co-author. “These global changes have implications for everyone in every part of the planet.”
A summary of the study is available at http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/fact-sheets/warming-oceans-are-reshaping-fisheries-85899474034.
========================================================
Me, I think it is just that the fish go where the food is, and cold water upwelling tends to make more food available. From NOAA:
The ecological effects of upwelling are quite diverse, but two impacts are especially noteworthy. First, upwelling brings up cold, nutrient-rich waters to the surface, which encourage seaweed growth and support blooms of phytoplankton. The phytoplankton blooms form the ultimate energy base for large animal populations higher in the food chain, including fish, marine mammals and seabirds.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02quest/background/upwelling/upwelling.html
UPDATE: Dr. Pat Mciahels writes in comments
Sent this to Leonard Bernstein, who got the story on the front page of today’s WaPo:
Hi Mr. Bernstein,
Congratulations in placing the fishery climate story on the front page! I have a couple of questions/observations that you may find interesting and worth commenting on.
The article cites a release by the Pew Foundation that clam populations that were comercially harvested in Virginia at the beginning of the paper’s study period (1970) are no longer viable and that fishery has moved to New England. If this is true, then the mean annual temperature of coastal Maine now should resemble that of tidewater Virginia in the early 1970s. In fact, data from the National Climatic Data Center show the average for the Tidewater Virginia Climatological Division were around 58degF in the early 1970s, while the Coastal Maine Division is averaging around 46 now. I am very surprised that Pew didn’t do such a simple fact-check test of hypothesis, or perhaps thought that no one else would look?
Further, with regard to commercial species that are fished in the deep ocean, the oft cited data of Sid Levitus and NOAA shows the expected massive dilution of surface warming at increasing depth. The change below 700 meters is a few hundreths of a degree (global average) while from 100 to 700 meters are a mere 0.1degC since 1955. This is where most commercial species live. I doubt that such a change is at all responsible for such substantial migration.
In fact, the attribution of fishery migration to climate change is very difficult. In a famous 2007 paper on distributional shifts and climate change in the Bering Sea, F.J. Mueter and M.A. Litzow wrote:
“A nonlinear, accelerating time trend in northward displacement (Fig. 5D), unrelated to temperature or any other climate parameter we tested (at any lag), suggests that mechanisms besides climate must be contributing to distribution shifts in the Bering Sea…The failure of our exploratory attempts to explain variability among species underlines the difficulties of this research problem.” [emphasis added]
I don’t see any of these issues addressed in Pew’s press release, and it seems to me that what they have provided is sorely lacking. I also have looked extensively at Cheung’s paper and I am once again amazed at what is getting through peer-review at Nature on climate change. They don’t measure any temperatures, they use a derived variable from species distribution data, and the temperature changes they derive are much much greater than those actually being measured in the regions in question. The reviewers should have at least asked for ground-truth temperature data.
Thanks for reading. Any comments?
Ironically Pew money is originally Sunoco (Sun Oil Company) money.
Of course, as with many foundations and NPOs, the staff and policies are ratcheted further and further leftwards politically over time.
Far from keeping any covenant with founders and founders, most activists take a perverse pride in twisting and distorting the mission and activities of such entities until they would be utterly un recognizable to the founders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pew_Charitable_Trusts
This is clearly pants science and I cannot rule out a possible wedgie being performed upon the public but I digress. Many comments have made salient points for alternative theories but alas like this paper they are wrong.
First consider the dead stinky fish turning up on our beaches. Whilst many theories are propounded ignore them. If you have watched a Hollywood horror film [Quaid et al] or even read a fictional book you will know this behaviour is a stampede driven by fear.
Secondly consider my sage words when we were faced with The Hybrid Global Warning Sharks (of the Climate Apocalypse) [Trademark pending] when it was
neither confirmed or denied that these [Jumping Global Warming Hybrid] sharks are related to the Kraken! To me this is the only logical explanation for an animal that has lived for millions of years through varying climate changes to decide to [censored] its neighbours. It is ludicrous to suggest this has anything to do with dwindling food sources caused by greedy [censored] nicking all the fish or the ominous threat of animal prostitution coming from the cold South [Antarctic waters]*
Note the authors of this study in fear have not considered these frightened fishies fleeing a Kraken that hath been released – which is clearly a consequence of catastrophic climate changes from not paying the Carbon Tithe into Saint Gore’s Carbon Trading Account**
/sarc
* Warning: choice but appropriate language may be used if you visit my site. If you are easily offended you may be a ‘persecuted’ climate scientist thrust – against your will of course as we know because you keep saying it – into the position of a fame seaking succubuss. If I am honest I blame WUWT as I often read an article and find myself saying some very naughty words.
** rates of interest may vary depending on how scary we can make the press release.
I’m not a scientist, I must be missing something here, the only trend I can see in the sea temperature (upper 300m) across the tropical Pacific … http://www.climate4you.com/images/PacificSSTareas.jpg
since 1979 is down … http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorialAverageSeaTempUpper300m%20130E-80W%20Since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Matthew Souders says:
May 16, 2013 at 3:07 pm
================
Your well written reply, is only lacking in data.
Where Anthony’s comment is only making an observation.
You just gave up your whole position, without even being probed.
GingerZilla says:
May 16, 2013 at 3:19 pm
My theory it’s more like the realization of those that think they can enforce the “it’s ours, ours mostly ours” rule over the long haul . . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
And for them . . . . that is for as many generations as “they” can. It’s part of why we are having all the policy discussions . . . . “so, please hurry up and die, or go away, just don’t touch what is mine, and if your going to give anything away, you better make sure you give it to us.” But, I am not cynical.
But, George Carland was . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYZpWTvre9c He said it right along time ago . . .
@Mathew Souders On top of that, the article does not claim that fish can be used as a real proxy of temperature.
The paper does claim to “reveal” global warming is “tropicalizing” fish and they imply a CO2 threat to the fisheries.
The titles “Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch” certainly suggests global warming is the sole cause of those changes and they imply it is a threat to marine ecosystems without considering other causes. Scientists traditionally were taught to entertain multiple hypotheses to explain any phenomenon in question. One trade mark of bad science and CO2 advocacy is that alternative explanation never get more than lip serve and this paper never considers any alternatives.
They suggest CO2 warming is pushing northward with “Marine fishes and invertebrates respond to ocean warming through distribution shifts, generally to higher latitudes and deeper waters Consequently, fisheries should be affected by ‘tropicalization’ of catch1–4 (increasing dominance of warm-water species).
“This study shows that ocean warming has already affected global fisheries in the past four decades, highlighting the immediate need to develop adaptation plans to minimize the effect of such warming on the economy and food security of coastal communities, particularly in tropical regions.”
I have listened to fishery biologist bicker about the the correct adaptations. Biologist who understand the effects of the decadal oscillations offer solutions that will insure refuge populations are not overfished during the ebbs in the cycle. For salmon they argue for stream restoration to assure refuge in low rainy season . In contrast biologist those that believe we are doomed by warming argue that we cut emissions and write off fish at the southern end of the range and spend their funding only on those fish being forced northward.
This article makes a lot bad claims that you seem to overlook.
Juraj V. says: “Climate science: still masturbating on that 30-years trend.”
Worse yet, as the French would say: “On ne fait que branler les mouches”. (Doing nothing more than masturbating flies)
Laurie Bowen on May 16, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Despite previous attempts the poor have not reduced their numbers. They are inefficient and we need to reduced costly people. I think if we burn all the poor D[–look away–]s then we are afforded, due even, one last Grand Carbon Sacrifice, which incidentally is just the kind of initiative we need to kick start the floundering* Carbon Trading markets and stave off the cold.
/sarc continues
* /pun
“Marine species are gradually moving away from the equator”
And we already know from Willis Eschenbach’s work that the equatorial waters can’t get any hotter than 30C. I think they are trying to get away from Argo floats and Marine institutes intrusive boats (sarc).
jayhd says:
May 16, 2013 at 11:03 am
“Here in Pennsylvania, there are many lakes, rivers and streams where there is an advisory restricting the consumption of fish from those bodies of water because of mercury. But I didn’t know the fish had so much mercury in them they could be used as thermometers!”
A couple of decades ago, I was having a beer with an old uncle who met a friend in the pub who gave us a smoked Winnipeg Goldeye, a fish specific to Lake Winnipeg that is an exported delicacy. My uncle asked his friend -“Isn’t this species loaded with mercury?” and the friend replied “Yes, but you just hold a lighter under his tail and quickly chop his head off.”
ralfellis 11:19 am
haha! you made my day!
Eugene WR Gallun
Matthew Souders they did not use measured water temperatures. They used adjusted weights of harvested fish stocks and changes of location since 1970 of harvested fish stocks as a proxy for temperature.
Anybody who has fished for salmon for a living out in the ocean is fully aware of fish migration cycles that extend into decades. How do you think oceanic cycles were discovered in the first place? My guess is that the pampered ninnies who penned the article above have never pulled a hook out of a fish’s mouth.
I had next to zero time this AM when I first posted this story due to meeting obligations with a network, Bob Tisdale has followed up.
His update to this post here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/16/washington-post-headline-worlds-fish-have-been-moving-to-cooler-waters-for-decades-study-finds/
I have met many a cold fish in my life, both underwater and elsewhere. Is that evidence? The hottest fish I ever met was in Darwin Bay, in the top end of Australia , 31C water temperature. Apparently it doesn’t get hotter than that anywhere.
I’ve fished for decades in the Bay of Fundy,both on boats and from the shore/docks. Didn’t take long to listen to the old-timers,if you wanted to catch fish. One year a certain place would give tons of tuna,next year bait fish like smelt. The old timers just said; well what did you expect?That spot is warmer this year because of temp fluctuations.Turned out we shoul have been going after some dolphin,which where following the herring.Next year or two,it would be back to “normal”. Been happening since the bay was first fished,around the middle of the 13th century,by the Micmac Indians.
Also been to that lovely little island called Bermuda 17 times.One year,the swimming was great,next year lots of jelly fish and barracudas(the barracudas where absolutly no threat,as the myth says). Fish,ranging from the stream to the pelagic,move around.Is that so surprising?
Not only did the fish go to deeper, colder water, but the sea-level rose so much the boats just got further away from them.
This is one of the best fishing stories that I have read. It is also one of the fishiest. Fish will suffer worse than tree rings under their desire to see increasing temperatures revealed from fish..
Possible there will be water-boarding of innocent selected fish prisoners until a hockey stick can be shown.
Well, actually, I’ve spent a good chunk of my life as a commercial fisherman, and I think this paper is correct.
Why? Because I can tell you exactly how fish stocks in the Tropics are being negatively affected by global warming. Here’s an example.
About a decade ago, I was living in Fiji. A friend and I were concerned about the loss of fish to foreign fishermen. They would come in illegally at night, bring their big boats in near the reefs and just rake in the fish.
He went down to Greenpeace in Suva, and asked if they could help us in the fight to keep the foreign fleets from plundering Fijian reefs.
Know what they said? They said sorry, we can’t help you … all of our money is going to fight increasing CO2.
So the complete chain of causation, from increasing CO2 to loss of fish, is laid perfectly is clear. Rising CO2 leads to global warming hysteria. This in turn leads Greenpeace and other NGOs to ignore over-fishing and illegal fishing in favor of a futile war against carbon-based energy. And this in turn reduces the number of fish in Fiji. What could be more obvious? The paper is right, global warming is reducing fish stocks …
However, as always in nature (the real nature, not the pathetic magazine) there are negative feedbacks. If the anti-carbon movement has much more success in raising energy prices, the cost of fuel will make many fisheries unprofitable. This will lead to a rebound in the number of fish. So if the anti-carbon forces win, the cost of energy will continue to rise un-necessarily until all commercial fisheries and logging and farming operations are unprofitable, with a windmill mounted on every farm tractor, and then everything will then be wonderful for all of the world’s creatures …
Well, wonderful for all except humans, particularly the poor kids around the planet for whom fish is a main or only protein source … I can’t properly express my contempt for those whose short-sighted and lethal policies designed to increase energy costs are causing so much illness and sorrow and loss and destruction among the poor of the planet.
w.
PS—/sarc might be necessary for some, I suppose, although as always in my tales, the story about Greenpeace is 100% true …
LOL Willis!
@jim Steele
“Well the food supply actually does have temperature-based prejudices but that is driven by upwelling.”
We you and I both know this is what attracts fish you’d think it would be common knowledge. As the paper is really about predictions of where fish will be (which has the implicit hint that conflicts between nations will emerge because of ‘global warming’) it may be O.T. but still, it serves us well to remember why fish move around. Perhaps that is why they developed fins’n’all.
Your explanation was comprehensive. When conditions change I expect the fish will continue to follow the food supply.