From the University of British Columbia via Eurekalert
Fish moving poleward at rate of 26 kilometers per decade
Large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2050, finds a new University of Britsh Columbia study that examined the impact of climate change on fish stocks. The study identified ocean hotspots for local fish extinction but also found that changing temperatures will drive more fish into the Arctic and Antarctic waters.
Using the same climate change scenarios as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researchers projected a large-scale shift of marine fish and invertebrates. In the worst-case scenario, where the Earth’s oceans warm by three degrees Celsius by 2100, fish could move away from their current habitats at a rate of 26 kilometres per decade. Under the best-case scenario, where the Earth warms by one degree Celsius, fish would move 15 kilometres every decade. This is consistent with changes in the last few decades.
“The tropics will be the overall losers,” says William Cheung, associate professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre and co-author of this study, published today in ICES Journal of Marine Science. “This area has a high dependence on fish for food, diet and nutrition. We’ll see a loss of fish populations that are important to the fisheries and communities in these regions.”
Cheung and his colleague used modeling to predict how 802 commercially important species of fish and invertebrates react to warming water temperatures, other changing ocean properties, and new habitats opening up at the poles.
“As fish move to cooler waters, this generates new opportunities for fisheries in the Arctic,” says Miranda Jones, a UBC Nereus Fellow and lead author of this study. “On the other hand it means it could disrupt the species that live there now and increase competition for resources.”
This study follows previous research that looked at change in fisheries catch in relation to ocean warming since 1970.
NOTE: Prof. William Cheung is travelling in Europe but is available for interviews. The best way to reach Prof Cheung is by email at: w.cheung@fisheries.ubc.ca
“Cheung and his colleague used modeling to predict …”
So, no real evidence.
In just a few words, you said it all.
Steven Mosher October 10, 2014 at 5:10 pm
All predictions require models.
————————
Not accurate.
All predictions require accurate models.
F=MA could be described as an accurate model.
Why don’t you focus on the models that produce accurate predictions instead of focussing on anything which is described as a “model”.
The “fish migration” model here is accurate in what sense.
The global warming model of TempIncreaseC = 0.75C*5.35*ln(CO2current/CO2orig) falls into the “inaccurate” model category so give that some thought.
Missed the locating reply button, obviously see below
Bill,
Mosher is being misinformative. Serially climately misinformative, if it continues ( ‘serial climate disinformer’ )
Re Mosher’s comment and all the replies: why feed him?
Sure did.
All predictions require models of some sort. If you are claiming A causes B, then that’s a model, Maybe not a complex model, but a model nevertheless, as it is a hypothesis of causality.
As regards fish, the quality of the model depends on the quality of the data. If I had two observations, and only two observations 260 km apart, then I would assume that the average of those two is the average of the territory of the fish population with those two somewhere within one standard deviation of the mean. In other words, if you know nothing about a population, then an observation should be assumed to be the mean, as that is the most likely scenario.
If I have more observations, then I have more data. I have to make some judgments about the nature and quality of the data. Does it show a trend? Every year, or only some years? Can I preclude observations outside my sample? For example, if I looked at the 260 km line, and the fish are not there, could they be somewhere I hadn’t looked, either farther north or south, east or west? How might that affect data quality?
Depending on the nature, frequency, reliability and consistency of data, it might support any number of different models. The more data, the more likely the models are to reflect the actual situation; or at a minimum, the greater the number of potential models you can discard as inconsistent with the data. If I can with confidence identify a given species of fish and its population every year, and it’s moving north, and I can demonstrate secular increases in water temperature in the vicinity of those fish, then I might have something. That’s probably a pretty high bar, though.
But even simple, bad models can be models if they imply causality. Readers will recall the “It’s Only Weird if It Doesn’t Work” ad campaign for Bud Light. http://www.funnyplace.org/stream/bud-light-very-superstitious-21514/ All these involve models of causality under conditions of extreme uncertainty. But they are models nevertheless.
Mosher is right. Even bad models are models.
David, UK October 11, 2014 at 12:12 am
Re Mosher’s comment and all the replies: why feed him?
Mosher throws derogatory terms/names at people, on climate web sites.
When he say something stupid, there are many people at the ready to return the treatment.
Steven Kopits October 11, 2014 at 10:00 am
All predictions require models of some sort. …
No. No. No. You can make any stupid prediction that you want to without any model at all!
There is n such restriction on prediction.
Steven Kopits October 11, 2014 at 10:00 am
…As regards fish, the quality of the model depends on the quality of the data. If I had two observations, and only two observations 260 km apart, then I would assume that the average of those two is the average of the territory of the fish population with those two somewhere within one standard deviation of the mean. In other words, if you know nothing about a population, then an observation should be assumed to be the mean, as that is the most likely scenario.
Steven,
If you had only two observations of fish populations, could you really make any valid assumptions?
You wouldn’t publish a paper, no?
All predictions require models.
Here is a model that predicts the force you will measure
F=MA
That model, which we choose to call a law, allows you to make predictions.
here is another model
D = R*T
if you tell me that you will drive at 60 mph for 1 hour, I can use this model to predict
how far you will go. If the road is hilly or there is wind blowing, or your car runs out of gas
my prediction will suck.
You predict the future. there is no data from the future. you use data from the past,
a model of how how you think the world works, to predict the future data.
The foolishness and utter stupidity of this “model” in this “paper” by this supposed “scientist” approved by this “scienterrific journal” after scrupulous but anonymous “peer review” by a sequestered panel of unknown “experts” that we collectively are laughing at is illustrated by the following detailed scientific model:
“If I drive vertically upward for 60 miles, my car’s heater will fail because my detailed heat exchange model proves it will not deliver enough hot air into the car to keep me from freezing; therefore, Washington dictators need to force every driver in the world to replace every car on the road because their current fans are not capable of keeping me warm in space.”
Unfortunately, whilst one can use mathematical equations to calculate stuff, that doesn’t really make it a model.
The models they are using for this are clearly two-fold. First there are the failed global warming models. I say failed because they are no longer skilful enough to have predicted more than half of the period in which there is supposed to have been global warming. The many excuses for this are not really good enough – if you really believe that something else should have been accounted for in your model – go back and do it again. So the first problem they have is to rely on models that don’t really work.
The second model they use is to one that tries to work out where fish will be based upon future sea temperatures. This is based on the assumption that the sole predictor of fish location is temperature, which it isn’t, it’s probably habitat and probably food sources.
Unless they can produce some real world data that can support their models I suggest we can consign this to the “if this happens, then this might happen (or not) category.
So Isaac Newton has been relegated to the level of M Mann with no proof required. I am surprised but not so much given the defender.
Mosh my man, how many predictions are accurate for the F=MA “model”? Okay all of them. Now how many predictions are accurate for the “CO2 controls the climate” model? ZERO. Do you spot a difference there?
All models are inaccurate, though some models are useful. The real science is in finding the useful ones.
What’s your science education? Maybe when I think you’re dishonest, you’re just incredibly ignorant. F=ma is not a model. It is an (alleged) law. It might be correct, incorrect, and to a more or less degree. But it is not a model. It is a claim about the way our universe works. A model is something like the climate model, where you propose that the earth consists of cells, each behaving in a simplified way (because you can’t compute the behaviour molecule by molecule). So which is it? Are you appallingly ignorant or are you trying to deceive people?
here is another model
D = R*T
“if you tell me that you will drive at 60 mph for 1 hour, I can use this model to predict
how far you will go. ”
True. As long as you know (or can estimate) what your average speed is and how long you will drive, you can calculate how far you can go.
“If the road is hilly or there is wind blowing, or your car runs out of gas
my prediction will suck.”
I was going to say, absolutely not true. But then, I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Does your prediction suck because your model is wrong, or does it suck because your simple model didn’t take into account either changing parameters or unforseen (unknown) parameters, like wind, slope, available energy (gas), etc.
If these are important parameters and you might die if you ran out of gas, then I would say your model sucks.
Steven – you have not given us one reason why we should use climate models at all. This prediction madness started with Hansen in 1988 when he presented his first three models. His scenario A was a prediction of what global temperature would be each year until 2019. His other two were theoreticals of how this would change if less CO2 was in the air and pretty much a waste of time.. His A model is the only one you can compare with the real world data and later comparison showed that it was wildly off the mark – much too high and scary. He did this one on an IBM mainframe but later models used supercomputers that could handle one million lines of code. You would think that this would improve the accuravy of predictions but this did not happen – they just kept adding parameters and got widely differing results, none any better than those of Hansen originals. Almost all of their future temperature predictions were too high which makes one think that it was no accident since their results were used in policy-making decisions. They contributed nothing to our understanding of future climate. It is an expensive collection of toys with no useful purpose and should be shut down.
Mosher,
The model in question is about fish. Nothing Newtonian. Nothing that smart.
So what *do* you know about the fish model? Anything at all? Are you defending it? Or are you just muddying the water?
Ron House
October 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm
“F=ma is not a model. It is an (alleged) law.”
Actually, it isn’t even that. It is a convention. We could as easily use dF/dt = m*da/dt. We choose F = ma because of the observation that, if there are no external influences, a = 0, and v is constant. So, we define the thing which acts to change that state as a “force”. We measure force as the influence which produces acceleration proportional to mass.
IOW, Newton’s second law is really just a restatement and codification of the first.
Mosher,
You said “all predictions require models”.
That is not true. Bad predictions don’t require anything, e.g. horoscopes.
The prediction that this post is about may be the product of a good model, it may be the product of a bad model, or it may be the product of wishful thinking and self deception.
In my slightly figurative backyard, I have been witness to (subjects posted here) actual instances of self deception by climate science practitioners.
Fishy models compared to F=ma? Seriously, Mosh, you know what a false analogy is. Why do you bother us with such…carp?
Quite so. It requires another thing: Calibration against the real world. Alarmist parameters are completely disproven. Only harmlessly low, beneficial parameters remain after a decade of severe RSS cooling in the face of elevated CO2.
“That model, which we choose to call a law, allows you to make predictions.”
Well Mosh, we choose to call F=MA a law because it has shown consistently that it can predict accurateley the outcome in Newtons of accelerating a known mass. In olden days when a model was proposed it remained a theory until such times as its predictive power could be guaranteed, then it move to being a law.
If it consistently failed to show it’s predictive power it was forgotten as a model that can’t predict accurately has no value in science.
This significant difference between what a model is and what a law seems to have been lost in recent times, to the extent that the when models consistently fail to predict what they claim to know, the data are challenged and put to one side instead of the model.
This will end in tears.
As an aside, I haven’t read this paper so I’m commenting what I’ve seen written here, but isn’t the theory that warming would take place more in the areas near to the poles and less in the tropics?
Frankly, anyone spending their time modelling the behaviour of fish in warmer waters is wasting their time and other people’s money.
F=MA is an equation or formula expressing Newton’s Second Law. It’s not a model.
F = MA is not a model … it is a formula … it has no adjustable variables as models do … it is useless without 2 of the three variables …
“All predictions require models.”
Then you test it with experiment, and then a lot of models and predictions fail that test, with climate science being a great example of that failing: it’s not getting warmer for 18 years now.
LOL!
No Steve, unless there is lying involved a car driving 60 mph for 1 hour will go 60 miles. Hilly roads wont change that, blowing wind wont change that and if the car runs out of gas then it wasn’t going 60 mph for 1 hour.
What sucks is your lame attempt at analogy. An attempt that fails so badly as to be laughable.
Of course it did lead to me constructing a model.
“Steven Mosher making a comment causes hilarity”
So far me model seems to predict reality pretty well.
Modeling to determine the impact of global warming on fish populations.
Or modeling to determine the impact of human predation (fishing) on fisheries.
Or modeling that doesn’t discern anything, except preconception.
I don’t know about models but fish do move as temperatures change. During the Medieval warm period fishing was good near Iceland. As the ocean cooled fish moved farther south and made it more difficult to fish with their boat technology. The Portuguese with better boat technology took over the industry.
On the other hand, 26 km in a decade? That’s fifteen miles, in a decade? Fish can swim 15 miles in two hours.
Here’s real news: Great White shark in Wellfleet Harbor, Cape Cod. This is where we go kayaking with the kids. It also illustrates what can happen to populations over a relatively short period of time:
“While Monomoy’s (Island, Cape Cod) gray seal population went from just a few individuals 30 years ago to more than 15,000 spotted in just one day, other parts of the Cape, such as Jeremy Point at the mouth of Wellfleet Harbor, can also be shark magnets with hundreds, if not thousands, of seals hauled up on the beach sunning themselves.”
Jeremy Point is our kayaking destination, typically.
Steven Kopits October 11, 2014 at 10:00 am
…As regards fish, the quality of the model depends on the quality of the data. If I had two observations, and only two observations 260 km apart, then I would assume that the average of those two is the average of the territory of the fish population with those two somewhere within one standard deviation of the mean. In other words, if you know nothing about a population, then an observation should be assumed to be the mean, as that is the most likely scenario.
Steven,
If you had only two observations of fish populations, would you really make any valid assumptions?
You couldn’t publish a paper, no?
Well I’ve got news for those folks.
People who like to fish for game fish for sport, in the oceans of course, always head for the tropics, and the hotter it gets, in their favorite fishing spots, the better the fishing gets.
Sometimes they are fishing in water six inches deep, that the fish like to swim into to feast every day, on crabs, and crustaceans, cooked by the sun warmed shallow water at low tides.
But fish can swim faster than 26 km per decade, so I’m sure they will go anywhere they please.
So true. Here in semitropical Florida, the fishing is best in the warm shallows in the hottest months. The tropics stabilize at an ideal temp anyway (due to NEGATIVE water feedback). Why is obvious in the context of evolution and a hotter past…
Indeed! “Large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2050” (The tropics, both at the surface and above the surface, have refused to follow the models) But hey, the published a paper and received a salary.
Ya, they are going to disappear from the tropics because we all know there are only a finite number oafish in the ocean and if they move north they must be leaving the south.
Great. They can’t predict the future ocean temps with any authority, but that doesn’t prevent them from
specifying the exact year the schools of fish will be at the 38th latitude.
I think Anthony is having a laugh on this one – seriously…..these guys are paid for this!
Yes, we pay these guys for this.
Oh yea, we are the fish paying for this whopper.
The field is wide open: Think up a warmist hypothetical – model it – go for a grant.
Money for jam.
The fish can run but they can’t hide; we will find them and catch them, silly boogers.
Great another flawed study using flawed models by flawed people, what could possibly go wrong?
I like to think of it as yet another stupid study using stupid models written by stupid people. This paper is by a bunch of Fracking idiots.
I hake saying this but this must be a Pollack joke. Codswallop. We should lave to flounder around.
…leave him…
But you’re not using this information upside down – the northern hemisphere ones are heading for Antarctica and vv, so the tropics will be fine /sarc
Okay, I see how this game is played. Come up with the most outrageous, ridiculous thing to worry about, then feed it to a gullible population.
There’s just no other explanation for something so completely over the top. Well,l except that it’s from UBC, which gives “left” a whole new degree. Not only are they on the left coast, they’re primarily Vietnam era draft dodging hippies creating policy…
“Not only are they on the left coast, they’re primarily Vietnam era draft dodging hippies creating policy…”
I tell you what, as usual with Boomer Science, this is one big uncodly mess. Now they are using smoked up environmental heavy “head trips” (aka models) to regulate and take over schools!
And since the tuna fish sandwich, clam chowder, and fish n chips are all well known secrets of women in domesticating wild, foolish lads and making fathers and men out of them, environmental regulations on seafood is also clearly yet another Boomer attack on marriage.
How about if we play catch-and-release, and let this little Boomer red herring masquerading as science suffer a sea change, at the bottom of the ocean, where it belongs.
Models all the way down…. This is getting old.
Interesting that the title is so definitive. “Fish Moving Poleward …” and at a vary specific rate as well. This is a definitive statement which led me to think that the paper would have observational evidence that various fish species were, in fact, moving poleward. Apparently not.
They left open the possibility that the Poles were moving fishward, as a true scientist should.
Not just the Poles but everyone about the Baltic Sea.
Lying is no longer a problem for these people.
all predictions require models.
If you observed that the fish were 260 km further south 100 years ago.
where would you guess they would be 10 years from now.
here is a hint “if you say you dont know, you lose”
But then you check if they’re really biting up there, else you have just a fish story.
Mosh, stick to the weather. Little bit of advice as old fisheries scientist. Stick to weather. Any fisheries person giving that prediction should be fired, because its the old 97% sure to be wrong. Fish do track temperature – but not not exclusively or narrowly (most fish have ‘optimum ranges’ – put them in a very long tank with same other conditions and varying they’ll choose one… until another fish bullies them, or there is a bit of food in another zone, or they like the cover or oxygen level, or the ammonia level in another. And that range can be quite broad, and vary with individuals as well as species-to-species (I did this as part of aquaculture program) And that’s in a tank. In the sea it’s a far more complex mosaic, depending on currents, depth, underwater geography, predators, prey, turbulence, turbidity, the times of the temperature, the length and breadth of that temperature pulse, not to mention fishing pressure and the currents that would sustain their planktonic young, return them somewhere useful, and provide the diet thereof – and duh, whether the fish were 100 km further north or south 200 years ago, and whether that distribution has flexed up and down in the last 100 years. In general we don’t even know if the fish really have moved or were not caught and recorded, or were misidentified. Fishing pressure now means more rare fish (outliers for their pop.) show up in modern sampling and modern reporting. Most of which we don’t know, and thus would be stupid to ‘predict’ – So if you say you _do_ know – YOU lose, Mosh.
But only if the exact conditions that drove them 260 km further south continued unabated.
No, Mosh, the fact is nobody knows. Some are willing to pretend to know, but they don’t know, no matter who they are or who they think they are, or how much money was left on their dresser after they prognosticated. .
Mosher,
“If you observed that the fish were 260 km further south 100 years ago.
where would you guess they would be 10 years from now.”
I know that you think that you can know (reconstruct) the global average temperature of the year 1340 (entropy be dammed).
But are you now saying that you can accurately know the location of fish one hundred years ago? That the study has reconstructed the fish location to the same accuracy as the population is surveyed today?
Or are you making a fatuous, trivial but true, observation that is not important?
Mosh,
Models inform our ignorance. Nothing more.
Make a model, then TEST IT.
When it fails, toss it out. Look at how it failed to see how to make it right.
So if my model is F=M2A then I ought to figure out my predictions are crap “right quick”. That ‘climate science’ is happy with crap models says where their values and understanding rests.
So since AGW predictions all fail, we know they are ignorant.
Or check to see if there is overfishing depleting the fish stock closer to the equator and the rest are what are being found..
here is a hint “if your climate model gets it wrong, you lose”.
Tom From Florida has the best answer for your faith.
What Tom is describing is climate change. Think about it.
If you say you know, then do not be shy, tell us.
Mosher said “if you say you dont know, you lose”
If you say you do know, you lie.
Actually we are saying you don’t know. The inference from this study is that the oceans are warming because AGW, Steve you tell me do you actually by that for even one second?
and Mosh, the models are only capable of extending trends…..which allows you to cherry pick any time line to show what you want
but they didn’t observe the fish 100 years ago … fishermen told stories about where THEY found fish 100 years ago … there may have been several reasons they looked farther south 100 years ago (harbors, wars, weather, etc.) it doesn’t show that the fish moved it shows they fished for them at a different location … and there is a reason they are called “fish stories” … fishermen are not the most reliable story tellers …
But I thought the latest ARGO data shows the below surface waters of the oceans to not be warming? I smell something fishy going on (eyes rolling)
The whole “Climate Change! We’re all going to die!!” stuff aside, since 1970 how many restrictions or changes in rules and regulations have occurred that might have had an impact on the catch?
“In the worst-case scenario, where the Earth’s oceans warm by three degrees Celsius by 2100, fish could move away from their current habitats at a rate of 26 kilometres per decade. Under the best-case scenario, where the Earth warms by one degree Celsius, fish would move 15 kilometres every decade.”
“This is consistent with changes in the last few decades.”
Say what?
Yeah – because that’s even possible, let alone likely, or real…
Now I wonder why they start their analysis in 1970, just when fish were busy swimming south when the Arctic ice was expanding?
There was only a step change in tropical troposphere warming, and even with that, it only warmed at about 1/3rd of what the models predicted, http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mckitrick-and-vogelsang-comparing-models-and-observations-in-the-tropical-troposphere/
and of course Antarctica has been flat or cooled, while the surface has not warmed as expected at all. There is no way the tropical ocean will warm three degrees like their worst case scenario.
Maybe frozen fish fleeing record Antarctica ice will replace those leaving the tropics… just saying..
At the rate of 26k per decade, it’s going to take those tropical fish an awfully long time to reach the Poles …
Yeh, they have to get into the Baltic to reach the Poles…
Okay, now that’s funny. 😀
Well done!
Dude, you’re on a roll keep’em coming!!! LMAO twice now on your posts, well okay the first was a groaner but made me smile.
Quality
So by 2060 the equatorial fish will be approaching…Singapore. The fish formerly resident in Tallinn might have traversed the ferry route into Helsinki.
Wake me when it gets interesting.
I think the the whole study is cods wallop.
Using more common units, that’s just a smidgen under half a furling per fortnight. Frightening stuff that!
Furlong… Dang, another invisible until posted typo 🙂
I read your first post as “furlongs per fortnight” and loved it. It was after you pointed out your typo that I realized my mind did “auto-correction” and I read it as furlong. Funny how our brains work, eh?
Paul Simon sang, “man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest”. Philosopher he was.
Actually, it was “And a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…”
Even if it were true, what exactly is the harm ?
The predators follow the prey, the fisherman follow the fish.
It is as it ever was.
proof there is life on other planets…………
But not necessarily intelligent life.
Large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2050 …
=================
Average sea temperatures in the upper 300 m at Equator in the Pacific 130°E and 80°W:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorialAverageSeaTempUpper300m%20130E-80W%20Since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Excellent graphic, plus 10
It is based on models which are hopelessly wrong, The models in turn are just a predetermined outcome to match a theory that has no basis of fact other than copious quantities of self-generated hot air. The theory in turn is generated by those with a specific hidden agenda which is too heinous to bring out in to the open.The hidden agenda in turn is based on a terminally flawed Utopian ideal that has a number of contradictions that diametrically oppose itself which have no means of resolution other than the widespread destruction of the very species that created the Utopian vision in the first place. The Utopia which these fools seek will be the very opposite of what they think will be the case. It will be Dante’s Inferno on steroids.
Well said. I kown the facts behind your generalities, and so, clearly, do you.
That’s CO2-based CAGW in a nutshell, High Treason. Nicely put.
Maybe I’m not scientist enough (OK, not at all), but this seems completely illogical!
If the worst case scenario is 3 degrees C over the next 85 years, and the equatorial ocean SSTs (according to NOAA) vary by roughly 2-3 degrees plus or minus (a range of at least 4 degrees annually), there is less predicted change over 85 years than the normal and observed change in a single year. Where is the driver? Are fish so sensitive that they can keep a running average over decadal spans and migrate predictively?
Is one to assume from this that in (say) 8 decades (2094) there will be a fish free zone 400km wide at the equator?
Assuming ocean temperatures increase, it seems unlikely. Some fish may anyway be tolerant of (or prefer) warmer temperatures, and increase in numbers. Some may over several generations (10 – 40 generations over 80 years) adapt to warmer conditions.
The main threat to fish populations is over fishing!
Hey, as they get to the Gulf of Mexico us Texans will have a bonanza!
No, no. No such luck. They will turn left at Panama.
Exactly how much energy would it take to increase the temperature of “the oceans” by 3°C? Tisdale, you out there? Is there any chance we could raise the temperature of “the oceans” by 3°C even if we tried? or even 1°C?
Having lived aboard our sailboat in the Caribbean for the last 10 years, I can tell you that fish in the tropics do not live at the Sea Surface, where Sea Surface Temperatures are measured (by satellite). The temperature of the water down just a meter is quite different, and at 10 meters (30 feet) is only vaguely related to sea surface temperatures.
During WWII (or maybe WWI) a wag proposed a solution to the UBoat menace: raise the water temperature to 212 degrees and cook the krauts in the can. But, how can we do that?
His response: That is an engineering problem, I only make policy.
I hope my math is correct. Annual worldwide energy consumption (in 2008) is 5.2 * 10^20 Joules and it takes 1.6 * 10^25 Joules to raise ocean temperatures 3C. That makes it about 30,000 years to get a 3C temperature rise if all the energy used in the world were dumped into the oceans.
But isn’t all the missing heat already in the oceans? You need to adjust your answer. (In climate science, who cares about calculations?)
I feel that 29,999 years is the correct answer.
We must act NOW or our children will never know what mahi mahi taste like!
In the past 58 years, the 0-100 metre ocean (where most fish live) has risen in average temperature by about 0.394C or 0.007C per year and, in the last 15 years, only about 0.05C or 0.003C per year.
So, by 2100 it will have risen by between 0.25C and 0.6C.
That is not going to move the fish habitable zones one iota.
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-100m.dat
Right, no fish in an ecosystem. That’s how nature works, it leaves whole areas unused, unexploited and un-adapted-to. In the high temperatures of times past, I am reassured by this article that there were no fish in the equatorial zones. Why, no doubt the little fishies traveled 26km horizontally, rather than a meter or two vertically. Makes sense. Right?
I’m sorry, was that too much snark? I just wish the stupid hurt these people more…
I can assure you that large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2015.
The albacore catch is still going strong, and you have to see the Japanese and Chinese fishing armadas to believe the rate they catch fish. Not to mention all the Pink Hake, that the Russians take; aka Chinook salmon.
Well people gotta eat; might as well be tropical pelagic fishes, and thay all swim faster than 26 km per decade.
I was told that global warming would make itself felt most as you headed towards the poles, and least at the equator. And in winter and at night.
Can fish swim?
Tell me about it. But will it be such a bad thing?