Basic premise of this paper: 1. let’s take fish out of their natural ocean environment, 2. put ’em in a tank where they are stressed, 3. crank up the temperature, 4. see if any fish die, 5. count dead fish, 6. assume natural adaptation is impossible 7. report news of future doom to the world via press release.
Via Eurekalert:
According to an international team of researchers, the rapid pace of climate change is threatening the future presence of fish near the equator. “Our studies found that one species of fish could not even survive in water just three degrees Celsius warmer than what it lives in now,” says the lead author of the study, Dr Jodie Rummer from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University.
Dr Rummer and her colleagues studied six common species of fish living on coral reefs near the equator. She says many species in this region only experience a very narrow range of temperatures over their entire lives, and so are likely adapted to perform best at those temperatures.
This means climate change places equatorial marine species most at risk, as oceans are projected to warm by two to three degrees Celsius by the end of this century.
“Such an increase in warming leads to a loss of performance,” Dr Rummer explains. “Already, we found four species of fish are living at or above the temperatures at which they function best.”
The team measured the rates at which fish use oxygen, the fuel for metabolism, across different temperatures – at rest and during maximal performance. According to the results, at warmer temperatures fish lose scope for performance. In the wild, this would limit activities crucial to survival, such as evading predators, finding food, and generating sufficient energy to breed.
Because many of the Earth’s equatorial populations are now living close to their thermal limits, there are dire consequences ahead if these fish cannot adapt to the pace at which oceans are warming.
Dr Rummer suggests there will be declines in fish populations as species may move away from the equator to find refuge in areas with more forgiving temperatures.
“This will have a substantial impact on the human societies that depend on these fish,” she says.
A concentration of developing countries lies in the equatorial zone, where fish are crucial to the livelihoods and survival of millions of people, including those in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
In an era of rapid climate change, understanding the link between an organism and its environment is crucial to developing management strategies for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of marine fisheries.
“This is particularly urgent when considering food security for human communities.”
‘Life on the edge: thermal optima for aerobic scope of equatorial reef fishes are close to current day temperatures’ by Jodie Rummer, Christine Couturier, Jonathan Stecyk, Naomi Gardiner, Jeff Kinch, Goran Nilsson and Philip Munday, appears in Global Change Biology.
Abstract
Equatorial populations of marine species are predicted to be most impacted by global warming because they could be adapted to a narrow range of temperatures in their local environment. We investigated the thermal range at which aerobic metabolic performance is optimum in equatorial populations of coral reef fish in northern Papua New Guinea. Four species of damselfishes and two species of cardinal fishes were held for 14 days at 29, 31, 33, and 34 °C, which incorporated their existing thermal range (29–31 °C) as well as projected increases in ocean surface temperatures of up to 3 °C by the end of this century. Resting and maximum oxygen consumption rates were measured for each species at each temperature and used to calculate the thermal reaction norm of aerobic scope. Our results indicate that one of the six species, Chromis atripectoralis, is already living above its thermal optimum of 29 °C. The other five species appeared to be living close to their thermal optima (ca. 31 °C). Aerobic scope was significantly reduced in all species, and approached zero for two species at 3 °C above current-day temperatures. One species was unable to survive even short-term exposure to 34 °C. Our results indicate that low-latitude reef fish populations are living close to their thermal optima and may be more sensitive to ocean warming than higher-latitude populations. Even relatively small temperature increases (2–3 °C) could result in population declines and potentially redistribution of equatorial species to higher latitudes if adaptation cannot keep pace.
=============================================================
UPDATE: from comments –
Even relatively small temperature increases (2–3 °C) could result in population declines and potentially redistribution of equatorial species to higher latitudes if adaptation cannot keep pace.
But what’s this I see? Acclimatization of the damselfish mentioned above! Good grief, we can’t have this.
Abstract – 2013
Evidence for developmental thermal acclimation in the damselfish, Pomacentrus moluccensis
Tropical species are predicted to have limited capacity for acclimation to global warming. This study investigated the potential for developmental thermal acclimation by the tropical damselfish Pomacentrus moluccensis to ocean temperatures predicted to occur over the next 50–100 years. Newly settled juveniles were reared for 4 months in four temperature treatments, consisting of the current-day summer average (28.5 °C) and up to 3 °C above the average (29.5, 30.5 and 31.5 °C). Resting metabolic rate (RMR) of fish reared at 29.5 and 31.5 °C was significantly higher than the control group reared at 28.5 °C. In contrast, RMR of fish reared at 30.5 °C was not significantly different from the control group, indicating these fish had acclimated to their rearing temperature. Furthermore, fish that developed in 30.5 and 31.5 °C exhibited an enhanced ability to deal with acute temperature increases. These findings illustrate that developmental acclimation may help coral reef fish cope with warming ocean temperatures.
Talk about junk, stupid science. The number of unproven (not to mention implausible) asumptions here is more than a dozen. Just as an example, fish have a fast breeding ccle, which allows for
rapid evolutionary change, when required, although here there is no valid reason to assume one is needed. The idea that “some fish are not at their optimal activity level” presumes these clowns can provide a good reason why that makes any practical difference, even if it turns out to be true by the distant time when the water increases that claimed 2 degrees. And why ignore the probability that if these equatorial fish are reduced, other populations of higher latitude fish populations are enhanced by the warmth heading their way? I believe that comercial fishing is heaviest at the higher latitudes.
Most of the fish kills in my neck of the ocean in Japan are from sudden cold, not warming…
Case in point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541327/Fish-caught-cold-Stunning-pictures-fish-frozen-mid-swim-Norwegian-lake.html
As Willis has said on this subject, show me the bodies of all these dead critters that were supposedly done in by the mighty CO2 molecule,,,
Let’s see, the cloud thermostat kicks in to keep ocean water no warmer than about 30-31C (I may have that number wrong by 1 or 2 degrees). When water gets warmer than that, thunder storms form and cool it back off. Their thermageddon will never happen in the tropics. Now if they were to check and see if some of the temperate and arctic fishes were to have a problem if their habitat warmed by 3C over a 100 year period (what is that about 50 generations?), they might have a study, but they would also have to show that the fish could not migrate north to cooler temps as this warming occurred.If the CAGW meme had any truth to it at all, the warming would be seen in the Arctic Ocean and then slowly farther south, but still would likely never exceed 30-31 C due to the thunderstorm effect, and would not get to that level globally for thousands of years if then. Methodology: FAIL. Logic: FAIL, Conclusion: FAIL.
Mr Rummer’ “Not boiled fish for tea again,dear , can’t you study oysters for a change?”
• Corals can migrate north or south.
• Fish can swim north or south.
• 87 years to acclimatize & adapt – is that possible?
• Evolution is still occurring I suspect.
I thought most of the warming was supposed to be at the poles or is that just the surface?
I am beginning to actually think the world is indeed only a few thousand years old! After all, how could species of any kid evolve to become so pathetically genetically weak & not be able to survive gradual changes in ocean temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, etc. Must be true! 😉
Bookmark it. I doubt you will see a finer example of Girly Science this century. And they are going to take over the world and everything are they ?
Golden Toady nominee. Category: conclusion driven sciencey stuff.
My cat objects to these experiments. He considers it a waste of good food.
I have found the key word – “IF”
“IF” global surface temperatures do rise 2–3 °C.
Hm, the thermal capacity of oceans is about 1118-times greater than that of the atmosphere. So if “oceans are projected to warm by two to three degrees Celsius by the end of this century”, what quantity of thermal energy is “projected” to be generated by global warming? Let’s try a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation: about 1789-2683-times the thermal energy that increased atmospheric temperatures by 0.8 C during the 20th century.
That can’t be right, can it?
Curious George says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:02 am
They may become a James Kook University. Keep up the hard work.
Please don’t insult the kooks.
Now, move along kook, no waves here.
Amazing how belief in climate change trumps belief in evolution by natural selection. These guys are effectively creationists!
But what’s this I see? Acclimatization of the damselfish mentioned above! Good grief, we can’t have this.
Anthony, see my last comment.
So we have been sorta kinda accurately measuring temperatures of the oceans for ten years. According to the measurements, the temperature of the ocean has fallen. But once you add in some adjustments, it has risen 3/100 of a degree. (I know, it sounds better if you say the oceans have absorbed the heat equivalent of 4 abps (atomic bombs per second)) And now he wants us to worry about the oceans warming 3 degrees? (Or 400 abps) That will take a heck of an adjustment, but never underestimate these guys. The desperation continues to show.
When in a fish tank fishes often find it difficult to swim north as the sides of the tank inhibits their movements to just a few feet. Can I get paid for this?
… perhaps they used a microwave to heat the water!
Isn’t most of the warming supposed to take place at the poles? Don’t ocean currents generally carry the warmer water away towards the upper latitudes?
Besides, fish can swim to cooler waters, rights?
MattS says:
February 11, 2014 at 7:45 am
“Our studies found that one species of fish could not even survive in water just three degrees Celsius warmer than what it lives in now”
The thermal mass of the oceans is immense. Is a 3 degree increase even remotely realistic?
——————————————————
From the back radiation of Beer-Lambert Law-neutered CO2 going from 400 to say 600 ppm in the presence of 3 – 4% water vapor ? I can’t be bothered to do the calculation, but they might be off by a 100 orders of magnitude.
Fish, in 350F oil, covered with a nice tempura batter, will not survive.
However, SST is down since 2002. So the fishies are fine if they stay away from the hot oil.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend
Will someone with an hour or so of life to waste that they will never ever ever get back please read the study and report on it? I already lost too much time out of my life reading the abstract.
TIA
(Harrumph! More like a ‘Centre For Culinary Beginners.’ Broiling or grilling is far superior to poaching. Oh! and BTW, these fish were poached, but were they obtained legally?)
As an Australian all I can echo is Jo Nova’s comment in her post regarding the English et al paper, ” It is time to turn off the tap to unskeptical scientists.”
What if they increased the temperature slowly over 50 years, would the results be different?
Damselfish are more resilient than we previously thought.
I wonder what the post
Sounds about as scientific as going up in the air over the ocean, counting things that look like dead polar bears, then extrapolating it over a region the size of the arctic…