Fish story: 'Fish moving poleward at rate of 26 kilometers per decade'

From the University of British Columbia via Eurekalert

evolve_fish_thermometer

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

Advertisements

201 thoughts on “Fish story: 'Fish moving poleward at rate of 26 kilometers per decade'

      • 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.

      • Bill,
        Mosher is being misinformative. Serially climately misinformative, if it continues ( ‘serial climate disinformer’ )

      • 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.

      • Steven Mosher
        October 10, 2014 at 5:10 pm
        All predictions require models….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 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?

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    • 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”

      • 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.

      • 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..

      • Mosher,
        here is a hint “if you say you dont know, you lose”

        here is a hint “if your climate model gets it wrong, you lose”.
        Tom From Florida has the best answer for your faith.

        But only if the exact conditions that drove them 260 km further south continued unabated.

        What Tom is describing is climate change. Think about it.

      • 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 …

  5. This study follows previous research that looked at change in fisheries catch in relation to ocean warming since 1970.

    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?

  6. “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?

  7. Maybe frozen fish fleeing record Antarctica ice will replace those leaving the tropics… just saying..

  8. At the rate of 26k per decade, it’s going to take those tropical fish an awfully long time to reach the Poles …

  9. Using more common units, that’s just a smidgen under half a furling per fortnight. Frightening stuff that!

      • 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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!

  14. 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.

    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!

  15. 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.

  16. Large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2050,….

    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.

    The study identified ocean hotspots for local fish extinction….

    Can fish swim?

    …but also found that changing temperatures will drive more fish into the Arctic and Antarctic waters….

    Tell me about it. But will it be such a bad thing?

    Abstract
    During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The maximum recorded movement involved cod, which spread approximately 1200 km northward along West Greenland. Migration patterns of “warmer water” species also changed with earlier arrivals and later departures. New spawning sites were observed farther north for several species or stocks while for others the relative contribution from northern spawning sites increased. Some southern species of fish that were unknown in northern areas prior to the warming event became occasional, and in some cases, frequent visitors. Higher recruitment and growth led to increased biomass of important commercial species such as cod and herring in many regions of the northern North Atlantic. Benthos associated with Atlantic waters spread northward off Western Svalbard and eastward into the eastern Barents Sea. Based on increased phytoplankton and zooplankton production in several areas, it is argued that bottom-up processes were the primary cause of these changes. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661106000036

  17. 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.

    Haaaa haaa.

    • Cheung and his colleague used modeling to predict how 802 commercially important species of fish and invertebrates react to warming water temperatures,……

      FAIL. The models have not been inputed with how fish adapt, acclimatize etc. This is garbage of the worst kind.

      • I actually emailed him with a polite link to Dr Brown’s recent posting here and a suggestion that he not rely on models any more.

  18. For how much longer do we the public have to be forced to keep on passing out our hard earned to keep these so called “scientists” and their bloody minded stupidity that is passed off as “science” and who in past times were otherwise known as soothsayers, witch doctors and shamans, in the life style to which they have become accustomed ?
    Is it any wonder that respect for science and scientists is in free fall amongst the public when we see the “prophecies”, the “soothsaying” and the “scientific predictions”, such as the above very fishy claim, all the same thing in climate science and all based on nothing more than speculation arising from a whole descending and sequential cascade of unproven,unverified and unvalidated models, each totally dependent on the output of a similar level of unverified, unvalidated, unproven models not dissimilar to those Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls.
    And from all of this al we ever get is non stop everlasting prophecies of glom, doom, death and destruction.
    We NEVER ever see some output from some supposed scientifically based climate model and the interpretations by the so called climate scientists that suggests and proposes that we are looking at a much better and brighter future because of the changing climatic circumstances.
    Economics was once labeled as the “dismal science”.
    Economics has long been surpassed by Climate Science in the levels of it’s “dismalism” and has far exceeded economics by it’s self immolating and debauched wallowing in catastophism.

  19. “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.”

    What a load of utter horses’ shyt.

    Abstract
    Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
    Kathy J. Willis et al
    4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
    How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
    DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833
    ==================
    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
    Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
    —————-
    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo & Andrés Cárdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
    Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
    There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403
    —————-
    Abstract
    PNAS – David R. Vieites – 2007
    Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders
    …Salamanders underwent rapid episodes of diversification and dispersal that coincided with major global warming events during the late Cretaceous and again during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal optimum. The major clades of plethodontids were established during these episodes, contemporaneously with similar phenomena in angiosperms, arthropods, birds, and mammals. Periods of global warming may have promoted diversification and both inter- and transcontinental dispersal in northern hemisphere salamanders…
    —————-
    Abstract
    ZHAO Yu-long et al – Advances in Earth Science – 2007
    The impacts of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)event on earth surface cycles and its trigger mechanism
    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event is an abrupt climate change event that occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event led to a sudden reversal in ocean overturning along with an abrupt rise in sea surface salinity (SSSs) and atmospheric humidity. An unusual proliferation of biodiversity and productivity during the PETM is indicative of massive fertility increasing in both oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global warming enabled the dispersal of low-latitude populations into mid-and high-latitude. Biological evolution also exhibited a dramatic pulse of change, including the first appearance of many important groups of ” modern” mammals (such as primates, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls) and the mass extinction of benlhic foraminifera…..
    22(4) 341-349 DOI: ISSN: 1001-8166 CN: 62-1091/P

    • The same happened during the warming 1917-1944. Lysgaard: Recent Climatic Fluctuations. 1949, and the tropics survived.

  20. …Prof. William Cheung is travelling in Europe…
    Good Lord! Modelling this leads me to believe that ALL our professors will be in Russia in a decade or so.
    Best place for them…

  21. This is too silly for words. By my calculation, 26km is 16 miles which means that it will take the average fish roughly 100 years to move from NY to Boston.

  22. I believe “Finding Nemo” was a more compelling fish story than the one Prof. William Cheung provides.

  23. The Benguela upwelling zone runs along the south west coast of Africa. Benguela is a province and city in Angola.

    Abstract
    Physical Oceanographic Influences on Central Benguela Fish Catch
    Ocean and atmosphere reanalysis fields are used to study environmental conditions and their relation to commercial fish catch in the central Benguela upwelling zone, using both targeted and objective techniques. Composite maps and sections indicate a 10%–20% weakening of southeasterly winds, a 0.5°C warming of sea temperatures over the shelf, and changes in currents and subsurface upwelling associated with higher fish catch. During periods of high fish catch, recirculating gyres form that may aid the retention of eggs and larvae. Offshore winds contribute to poleward Ekman transport in a 50-m-deep layer within 100 km of the coast.
    In addition to composite analysis, the natural variability is studied by principal component analysis of wind stress, sea level, temperature, salinity, currents, and vertical motion in the period 1970–2007. Comparison of interannual time scores and fisheries data indicate that anomalous poleward winds and warmer temperatures in the Lüderitz plume, driven by an atmospheric trough in the South Atlantic, are associated with higher catch rates.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2012ei421.1

  24. I wonder if they’ve ever heard of the changes in water temperature caused by ENSO?
    By their theory the fish stocks in the central Pacific should be wiped out every few years. Or perhaps each species moves around following its preferred water temperature, rather faster than 26 kilometers per dacade.

  25. Pathetic. The PDO was discovered by a UW fisheries researcher who looked at historic salmon catches. The data showed that where the warm water was in an approximately 30 year cycle determined whether salmon were caught off the coast of the Pacific NW or Alaska.
    The Team imagine that the climate never changed before 1977, apparently.

  26. I’m soliciting for a series of re-analyzed model runs to show areas off Florida’s East coast to be warming up to 100°C or more. I need that data to apply for DoE backed “loans” for my startup “green” business to lessen our dependance on coal and oil. My solar powered fishing fleet will go to these newly modeled 100°C+ areas to catch “pre poached” fish thereby eliminating the need for evil fossil fuel energy to cook said fish later. “From Sea to Plate”© is our motto.
    … It makes as much sense as their “study.”

  27. Poppycock. Ocean temperatures vary much more than 3 degrees and pelagic fish follow the ideal temperature hundreds of miles yearly already. Take tuna for example….they travel the Pacific between Japan and the West coasts of the Americas constantly in well known migrating patterns. When tuna fishing the first thing you look for is water temp above 60 F. This is just another “insert AGW and get published and get your advertised.”

  28. “There must be some kind of way out of here, ”
    Said the jellyfish to the reef,
    “There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.”
    Let’s see; a healthy human body is said to operate at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But that’s a misnomer. A healthy person can exhibit temperatures quite a bit more than one degree below and a bit more than one degree above that magic number. And, except for a few members of our species (that generally occupy the halls of government), we’re warm blooded. Last time I checked fish and invertebrates aren’t. (Ok, there’s a few exceptions with sharks and tunas.) So, a healthy warm blooded human animal can exhibit differences in body temperature of over 2%. But a cold blooded animal can’t for chrissake. In captivity tropical marine fish are advised to be kept at 78 degrees Fahrenheit water temperature. (I’m am American, I grew up with Fahrenheit although we didn’t know each other personally.) A one degree celsius change (I won’t bother with the 3 degree change since that’s simply ludicrous) represents a 1.8% change from that 78 degree American temperature. So, a warm blooded creature can handle a greater body temperature change than a cold blooded one which, faced with that itsy bitsy dilemma is gonna have to find some kind of way out of there. C’mon. Don’t for a second think there aren’t naturally occurring temperature gradients in the water already: warmer water washing back from the hot shores; cooler water flowing in from the open ocean; warmer water rising, evaporating and cooling. The water is in constant vigorous motion in the reefs. And then there’s the tide pools where the temperature changes, and also salinity changes, can be dramatic, and who’s creatures are very similar to their reef cousins. And, the constant churning of the reef waters insures oxygen levels are already above saturation, so any temperature change (which I’ll bet isn’t going to occur anyway) is unlikely to have impact on that. Moreover, isn’t it the cold, dry, polar air masses that are supposed to exhibit the most warming in these attack of the CAGW scenarios. Last time I checked the tropics are about as far away from the poles as you can get. Unless, of course, the Earth does some kind of cosmic, seventh dimension, internal, belly, double back flip.

  29. Awright. At the risk of having the crowd turn on me, I’ve got to fill you guys in .
    In NE, the cod have taken a powder. The water in the Gulf of Maine has risen to temps that are driving them out. It started in 2010, and peaked last year. This has thrown fish management into a tail spin, and the enviros pof Pew, CLF are still harping about over fishing being the reason they are not there. Its complicated.
    Last winter in the North East and Canada, the winter from Hell started changing things back. The Gulf of Maine was I little cooler this year. If we get the same kind of winter, it will be better for the fish. They will start to come back even more.
    The cod collapse up in Canada is over because the Gulf of Maine cod migrated there. The scientists will dispute this fact. But an old fisherman in Newfoundland has said, he’s not seen fish like he’s seeing now in almost fifty years!
    I can tell you right now, the fishermen from both countries know the score.
    The scientists have not acknowledged this shift because of the computer models.
    The two most important parts have been left out of the modeling, temperature, and predator/prey.
    Those two omissions rob fishermen of the truth, and cause management to be flawed
    This gives a good picture.
    Mr. John Bullard, Dr. Bill Karp, Gene Martin, Esq., Gentlemen, I am addressing these comments to you and not the council because I believe you are the people that have to address the issue. From my perspective, as a scientist, NOAA committed two unpardonable sins with its press release on Gulf of Maine cod on August 1. Science was replaced with advocacy that day when statements were made about the condition of cod, and that immediate action must be taken after a secret, experimental stock status update before peer review http://fisherynation.com/letters

      • I didn’t ask a question. I told you, (since you read it, I appreciate that) what has happened in New England and Newfoundland. This is not theory, its fact. If you choose to label setting catch limits using the best available science, (its not, but the government controls it, while Magnuson Stevens dictates it), with a fleet that has under fished bad management, I’d have to disagree.
        The ones that would agree, the eco quackeroos of Pew, and CLF (the two Peters) cannot have it both ways. They are using climate as a reason to build off shore wind farms, close more bottom to fishing for “conservation” (causing localized depletion), and ignoring eco logical issues.
        Also, while the cod take a powder, Black Sea Bass are moving in. Not good news for small lobster. They eat them like popcorn. Maine wants to start managing them. Setting catch limits! The next crisis will be lobster in the Gulf of Maine!
        That link is a letter written by a fisherman that sat on the council for a nuber of years. Hes a very smart man. John Bullard is the Regional Admin of NMFS. Bill Karp is the head of the Northeast Science Center.

        • I stand corrected, you did not ask a question. Not understanding where stock might move is poor fish management. It happens. Saying AGW caused the fish to move is BS.

      • Well markl, I’m not a fan of this blog because I believe in the warming BS.
        I’m also not saying this situation that I’ve brought up is a once in a lifetime, permanent event. There’s been boom and bust in the fisheries forever. These are natural events.
        Facts is facts though, and its fact that this has occurred!
        Chesapeake Blue Crab in Yarmouth Nova Scotia? Really!
        Squid in the Gulf of Maine, usually found to the southward? Really.
        Lots of kooky shit has happened. The premise that fish have moved towards the poles seems correct, however, is it permanent? I doubt it.
        Already seeing changes because of last winters severity.
        As far as your poor management dogma, You sound like a enviro quackeroo that believes the ocean is a fish tank in the living room.
        Fish and Future
        That fish is good for us is indisputable. Doubts today are planted as to whether fish will always be with us. Are not most commercial species of fish depleted? Yes, in part. But this answer does not look at the entire biomass. While some species are depleted, others are superabundant. Scary headlines insist that cod and other bottom fish are depleted; yet, mackerel and herring – the pelagics that live in the middle of the water column – are still superabundant.
        It is only by looking at the entire biomass and the relationships among predators and preys that we might be able to find lasting and equitable solutions to the future physical utilization of the harbor. So far, we have identified one major predator-prey relationship: bottom fish and pelagics are in such a relationship. This is clearly visible as soon as one abandons the static, linear, pyramidal conception of the biomass. Predators are not always predators and preys are not always preys. At times predators become preys and vice versa.
        http://fisherynation.com/fish-future

    • I hear warmer water caused a glut of lobsters in recent years. Climate change is a funny old thing.

      7 August 2013
      The Maine lobster industry is being crippled by a glut of supply that many attribute to climate change, sending the price per pound plummeting and turning the crustacean into something it has rarely been before: affordable.
      http://www.cnbc.com/id/100947459
      ==============
      July 28, 2012
      In Maine, More Lobsters Than They Know What to Do With
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/us/in-maine-fishermen-struggle-with-glut-of-lobsters.html?_r=0

      Something odd with cod.

      Dr. Tim Ball
      The Canadian Department of Fisheries used similar declining cod population numbers on the East Coast to stop the cod fishery completely. This devastated the Province of Newfoundland, because it was akin to going to Kansas and saying you can’t grow wheat anymore. It also led to closing many “outport” communities and moving the people to bigger centers, disrupting centuries old cultures and traditions. The frustration for Oceanographer, Roger Pocklington and I, was, we were monitoring ocean water temperatures and their causes and warning Ottawa that cod numbers were going to decline because of changing conditions. Nobody listened! A complete way of life was destroyed unnecessarily, because the cod moved to inshore waters and out into warming Gulf Stream waters where Europeans continued to catch them.
      http://drtimball.com/2014/salmon-climate-and-accountability/

      • It had a dramatic effect on lobster in the past few years. The warmer temps in the Gulf of Maine caused a massive shedding event. Two years worth of glut in the supply. Following last winter, which was colder ‘n a witches tit, these years lobster harvest was a lot more like it usually is.
        Maine’s lobster industry feeling pain of slow start – Some say the crustaceans are ‘back on the old time clock’
        http://fisherynation.com/archives/26446
        As far as Cod go, they are having a cod renaissance in Canada, Some look at it as a crisis. Cod is cheap, they don’t have a market for it, following the dismantling of the industry in 1992, and they are scared to death that the cod will eat all the crab and shrimp they get top dollar for.
        Pages of lobster articles here: http://fisherynation.com/?s=lobster
        Canadian fishermen are very concerned that our refugees from the Gulf of Maine will eat the shrimp and crab stocks that they prefer to catch because of value, and not to mention the infrastructure to catch and process cod has vanished, while those same codfish are worth about .70 cents ex vessel price. Our bad boys are not welcome there, but, Nature prevails!
        An earlier post, Does Newfoundland Fisherman Tony Doyle have the answer NOAA Doesn’t?
        It’s a huge mystery to NOAA scientists. Where have the fish gone? The ENGO bunch seems happy to say that the New England fishing fleet has depleted the resource. Is that true, or have they done what the fishermen have said? They moved? Newfoundland Fisherman Tony Doyle says as far as ground fish go, he’s never seen anything like it in forty years of fishing! Listen to this audio, and key the broadcast to 13:40. His interview starts at 07:16 of the podcast. I enjoyed hearing his description!

  30. I hope that none of these researchers suffers from malnutrition, and that they are generally OK.

  31. Now all they need is a teary eyed fish sitting all alone in a vast ocean, as described by a teary eyed starlet begging us for money lest the little fishies die from starvation.
    What is it about watermelons that makes them work so hard to get us to look away from real life solvable problems!?!?!?!?! Remember when we were drilling fresh water wells so that kids in Africa weren’t getting sick with Giardia? Whatever happened to that? Oh. That’s right. We must conserve water for the fish.
    Idiots

  32. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its warm phase from 1976 to about 2000 fish with more southerly affinities did indeed move northward. When the PDO turned to its cool phase the migration reversed as had been predicted by fishery experts like Sally Holbrook who were attuned to Ocean regime shifts. As has been noted before a similar cycle happened in the Atlantic and fish have just reached the same northerly limits they reached in the late 50s. I have not read this paper but I doubt they accounted for these cycles. By simply creating a linear correlation with net movement restricted to a 1970s start period, then they could statistically justify a correlation with rising CO2 and extrapolate that to a scenario of future climate hell. My guess is they never accounted for Pacific and Atlantic Oscillations

  33. wait long enough, 1/2 of all the fish in the world will be at the north pole. since it will be ice free, you can scoop them up in a net. the other 1/2 the fish, those trying to make it to the south pole are going to have to wait until they evolve legs.
    and the rest of the oceans, all now free of fish. Are we to imagine that no fish would stay behind? Please oh learned professors please tell us, of all the oceans of the world, which are currently too hot for fish, so that any change would bring CATAAAAASTROPHY?
    Is it the waters of Indonesia, some of the hottest on earth – nope plenty of fish. Or the Red Sea, the hottest in summer. Nope plenty of fish. So please tells us oh learned ones, which waters are so hot that no fish will remain.
    Because both Indonesia and the Red Sea, with just about the hottest waters on earth have lots of fish and lots of healthy unbleached coral. Both of which should be impossible according to the science of climate CATAAAAASTROPHY.

    • Thanks for the reminder about the Red Sea and Indonesia.

      IPCC
      Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) dominate the world’s catch of tuna. The habitat supporting the densest concentrations of skipjack is the western equatorial Pacific warm pool, with SST of 29°C and warmer…..
      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=289

      Wiki tells me that the average surface water temperature of the southern Red Sea during the summer is 30 °C (86 °F).

  34. Yet, it appears to me, at least one species of fish is moving….EAST!!!! How does THAT figure into the model??????
    http://www.opb.org/news/article/officials-laud-record-setting-columbia-river-salmon-run/
    (For those of you who don’t quite know how this works, the migration North and then back down South in the Pacific Ocean is a natural thing. So don’t worry. Our river will not eventually get clogged from shore to shore with salmon, though it damn near did this fall.)

  35. Outside my home this morning at 7 AM it was 60 degrees F. By 13:00 it was 80 degrees F. I have created a computerized model to extrapolate this alarming trend and project that the temperature in my front yard will exceed 29,000 degrees F within 12 months. Who should I contact to receive my grant in support of further research? Our earth hangs in the balance!

  36. “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.”
    Sheesh. That’s a little over 23 feet per day. That’s about as fast as Kudzu grows in the summertime. I wonder how many fish swim 23 feet to the north each day and say, “ooh, that’s too cold!.”

  37. What happens when all the fish finally reach the pole? Will the mother ship beam them up and head off in the general direction of Polaris?

  38. Has anyone asked the fish? I have. And of those interviewed, 65% said they would prefer warmer oceans. 25% said about the same. Only 5% preferred colder oceans. And 5% refused to answer on based on their religion, sexual orientation, or privacy grounds. The sample size for this survey was 67 fish giving a 97% confidence.

  39. In the 14th century the onset of the Little Ice Age and cooling oceans forced large numbers of herring from the Baltic to the North Atlantic. This well-documented temperature-forced migration contributed to the eventual downfall of the Hanseatic League.

  40. “…a new University of Britsh Columbia study that examined the impact of climate change on fish sticks.”
    Oh, wait. Stocks. Never mind.

  41. I’m hoping that the oceans get so hot I won’t have to cook my catch before eating. Fat chance.

  42. “Can fish swim?” –Jimbo
    Multi-million dollar studies at the University of Utah’s Melvin Dumar Institute have answered that question. Their computer model has established at the 99.7% confidence level, based on millions of runs, that fish, despite illusory anecdotal evidence, can not actually “swim.” They are capable of making swim-like motions, but most spatial displacement is a result of tidal and waval action than actual self-propulsion. Not content with just computer studies, Dr. Proetzl von Luniben, PhD, verified his model with an actual fish in a 6″ diameter spherical container. Other than a single semi-rotation of “Nemo” from a prone to a supine orientation, no net motion was observed over a one month interval, thus establishing the robustosity of the model-based study. [The semi-rotation was not replicated in any of the model runs, and is therefore considered due to observation error.]

      • jorgekafkazar, I looked up that paper and I saw that Dr. Proetzl von Luniben has determined that “more study is needed” regarding the influence of pelicans on the relative motion of fish to the ocean via the pelican’s gullet, which he hypothesizes is a major determinant of fish displacement in the absence of tides and waves. Apparently, the science is not settled.

  43. This doesn’t seem very fast rate of change. At 26km a decade, it would take. A fish 3604 years to get to the pole. That’s slower than a snail at 0.013m/s?

  44. So it’s come to this: Computer modelers assert AGW is responsible for pole dancing fish…..at a 26 kilometer per decade cadence. And by 2100, the tropical waters will be barren….. Oh, the humanity.
    It’s so dumb it is physically painful to read and observe. What has become of our world??? What has become of the ‘scientists’ and science we all used to respect and hold in high regard? What has become of the citizens that today believe this irrational crappachino?
    I see stupid people… and they don’t even know they’re stupid.

  45. Willis Essenbach showed in a recent post that surface water temperatures in the tropics never exceed about 30C. This is because of the thunderstorm negative feedback. The tropics don’t change that much even during ice ages. (Poleward heat transport however does change.)
    As Bill Illis pointed out above if we believe ocean temperature estimates (I dont) then oceans are warming at 0.007 C per year. But with almost no data below 2000m we dont have a clue about total ocean temperature and trends thereof.
    A 3C increase in ocean temperature in one century is fantasy that you would expect from a 3 year old child of a drug-addict environmental activist parent.
    Not only is modelling not real data. More and more it is being performed by individuals who are sterile of even the most basic understanding of – or even curiosity in – the physics and dynamics of the real ocean and climate. There is a disconnect between climate modelling and climate measurement data. This computer modelling can only be described as political, not scientific.
    I wonder if William Cheung has ever seen a fish other than on his restaurant dinner plate during his tax-payer funded world travelling.

    • Reply to phlogiston ==> Dr. Chung probably has seen a fish or two, touched them as well. Here’s his bio. These kind of senseless personal attacks on scientists (they would be your colleagues if you are a scientist), of whom you know nothing at all, are simply uncalled for. (I think that the idea that it would ever be possible to raise the temperature of “the oceans” by 3°C absurd myself — but that is no call to denigrate Dr. Chung. )
      William Cheung
      Name: Dr William Cheung
      Email: xxxxxxxxxx@fisheries.ubc.ca (obfuscation mine – kh)
      Associate Professor
      BSc (HKU), MPhil (HKU), PhD (UBC)
      Biography
      William is an Assistant Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre since 2011, and is head of the Changing Ocean Research Unit (CORU). William obtained a BSc. (Biology) in 1998, and subsequently a M.Phil. in 2001 from the University of Hong Kong. After working in WWF Hong Kong for two years, he moved to Vancouver and completed his PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies in the UBC Fisheries Centre in 2007. He then worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the Sea Around Us project for two years. From 2009 to 2011, he was Lecturer in Marine Ecosystem Services in the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia in the UK.
      Currently, his main research area is on assessing impacts of fishing and climate change on marine ecosystems and their goods and services, and studying ways to reconcile trade-offs in their management. Specifically, he develops empirical and numerical simulation models to examine the impacts of climate change on marine biodiversity and fisheries, globally and in various regional seas. He applies interdisciplinary approaches to evaluate the trade-offs between ecological, economic and social objectives in managing coastal social-ecological systems. Moreover, his research involves the development and application of original approaches to study historical changes in fish stocks and ecosystems. He works on various interdisciplinary research projects with global collaboration networks in the U.K., China, Australia, Africa, USA and Canada. He has been a member of the IUCN Groupers and Wrasses Species Specialist Group since 2005 and serves on the editorial board of Fish and Fisheries and International Journal of Sustainable Society.
      [Has Dr Chung ever been paid to actually catch fish for a living? .mod]

      • Kip Hansen
        October 11, 2014 at 9:34 am
        Reply to phlogiston ==> Dr. Chung probably has seen a fish or two, touched them as well. Here’s his bio. These kind of senseless personal attacks on scientists (they would be your colleagues if you are a scientist), of whom you know nothing at all, are simply uncalled for. (I think that the idea that it would ever be possible to raise the temperature of “the oceans” by 3°C absurd myself — but that is no call to denigrate Dr. Chung. )

        Yes it is a perfectly valid reason to label Dr Cheung as a fool. He may write a nice biography. He may even be a nice person in fact – other than the minor issue that Dr Cheung is deliberately supporting policies that will kill millions of innocents worldwide while paying Dr Cheung hundreds of thousands of dollars in research grants and promotions…..
        But he is an unrealistic fool too incompetent to live in the real world where he would be held accountable for his results. Isolated in his academic never-never land of fawning liberal bureaucrats and ignorant students and anonymous sympathetic “pal-reviews” being hand-held by editors equally incompetent where he is shielded by promises of government tenure and immune from failure?
        Under those circumstances, even I could create a nice biography for myself.

      • Kip: I agree with RACook.
        It is high time that those in research and academics be called to account for their behavior. You cannot point to a single climate model that gives a dependable product. You know it and Dr. Cheung knows it. Science based on climate models is tantamount to fraud, in my view. Every publicly funded climate research is tainted with alarmism. Science has been perverted for political ends.

      • Reply to RACookPE1978 ==> Repeating an offense — either by yourself or the moderator — is not a valid defense. The offense is attacking the person through denigrating remarks or school-yard name calling.
        You are free to express your opinions about academics, government policy, the ideas presented in his paper (which I suspect you haven’t read any more than I have), the unlikelihood of raising the temperature of the entirety of the world’s oceans…etc.
        But is is improper to make statements about Dr. Chung, his personality, his motivations and general competence — you know nothing of these things.
        Launching personal attacks is against WUWT commenting policy.
        Note to Moderator ==> Enforcing WUWT policy is your job — violating it yourself by injecting snarky ad hom comments is the opposite of your job.

      • Kip Hansen
        October 11, 2014 at 10:11 am
        Reply to RACookPE1978 ==> Repeating an offense — either by yourself or the moderator — is not a valid defense. The offense is attacking the person through denigrating remarks or school-yard name calling.

        Passionate, eh?
        Fine.
        Ignorance means “I do not know something.”
        Ability (with respect to intelligence) means “I have the capability of understanding and discussing something, if told about that subject, or if I research that subject.”
        Ignorance is not an insult, but a accurate statement of being, perhaps even a temporary state of being. Ignorance can be “cured”. It IS cured regularly.
        But a “fool” can be a permanent state, perhaps even deliberately staying in a permanent state as a “fool”.
        I used the term “fool” deliberately.
        A “wise” man or woman knows that he is ignorant, and either does not publicly write about those subjects in which he or she is ignorant, or acknowledges the ignorance and learns enough to erase fill the previously ignorant void, or limits one’s writing and speaking around the ignorance with humility – addressing it and making assumptions or approximations needed to continue the conversation. Thus, I do NOT pretend to know the exact speed of every fish species, but I DO know that many can swim faster than 13 kilometers per hour. I do NOT pretend to know the exact distance every oceanic fish migrates, but i DO know that many species swim many thousands of kilometers in their normal lives.
        A “fool” writes in public, professionally and as a matter of explicit purpose in taking money specifically to create a report that WILL AFFECT public policy and WILL AFFECT the future lives of billions (as part of the government’s paid propaganda campaign for worldwide CAGW). A “fool” writes about a subject he or she supposedly knows in detail and is proud of what apparently is the climax of years of well-paid government-funded research that contains such blatant errors and exaggerations that reveals the writer’s utter lack of understanding of the exact subject he is claiming as his basis for life and honor.
        But this supposed “fish scientist” is a “fool”. He is not even capable of acknowledging a simple fact that a future change in ocean temperatures is not only massively exaggerated by those who pay his salary and his research, but is actually impossible. Then he continues by writing in public – after supposed “peer review” by who are evidently equally foolish “peers” of fish “scientists” that this impossible temperature change will affect fish migration by such a small distance over such a long period of time that the result is less than the distance a healthy fish can move in two hours every day. Much less the migrations of billions of individual fish in thousands of species across distances as far as thousands of kilometers.
        An incompetent man would not recognize his error.
        A “wise man” would recognize the failure of his research to produce the propaganda result that was desired. A wise man would write his paper addressing the research model, the results, and the NEGATION of the desired propagandic results! “The effect of massive global ocean temperatures was analyzed by geometric and fish school computerized models in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, mid-Pacific and south Pacific. No credible effect on fish migration by global warming was found: Although models predict a 26 kilometer movement in nominal ocean migration paths per decade of theoretical global warming, this change cannot be reasonably differentiated from the normal daily movement of the following species A, B, C, D, ……. More research is needed at sea tracking actual schools of A, B, C, and D migrations.”
        But Dr Chueng is a fool. And advertised his foolishness in public, in a professional journal. Was his conclusion bought and paid for by the government in order to get the publicized paper? Well, we do know he was paid by the government, and we do know his resume has been enhanced by one more paper needed by the government that paid him …

  46. If grant-hungry [pseudo]scientists put half as much effort into researching real causes of climate change as they do trying to “prove” anthropogenic global warming, they could make real progress.

  47. When fish moves north the aboundant food sources left behind will be taken over by other fish that can tolerate more heat. Where there are food there are life. So moving north will extend habitat and eventually give room for more fish. Lige is a funnie thing!

  48. At the rate of 26 km per decade, the fishes will reach the mid latitudes in 1,000 years and the Arctic Circle in 2,846 years. Global warming could pause or become cooler before that time and reverse the migration. BTW it became warmer since the Little Ice Age. Why are the fishes still in the tropics? The Coral Triangle is at the equator. It is home to 3,000 species of fish and $3 billion worth of fish catch every year.

  49. What is it about fish and the man made globular warming fraud that brings out the worst in these climate scientologists?
    Smaller fish and deaf fish and now fish heading for the poles, you just couldnt make it up, unless of course you were fishing for grant money.

  50. is there a model that predicts how many more stories using models to come out with stories using models to push AGW.

    • The frequency of AGW scare stories was analysed and found to be periodically forced by, and phase-locked to, the frequency of major international climate jamborees conferences. They build up to a max just before each one.

  51. Same old, Same old
    1951
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/71392865?searchTerm=glaciers%20melting&searchLimits=
    SEA LEVELS CHANGE
    Even the fish in the ocean know
    about it, too. Ahlmann reports that
    Eskimos are catcbing and eating cod,
    a fish, that they never saw before
    1900. Julian Huxley has reported
    that herring and haddock have been
    moving north off Greenland at 24
    miles per year for the last 30 years.
    Sub-zero temperatures occur only
    half as frequently in northern cities
    as they did 75 years ago.
    OLD FARMS EXPOSED
    Greenland’s Ice is melting and the
    ruins of mediaeval farm-houses hid-
    den by ice for centuries have already
    been exposed.
    In Spitsbergen the mean annual
    temperature has risen by four degrees
    since 1912.
    Ships ply the White Sea and Ihe
    Gulf of Bothnia three or four weeks
    longer than they used to.
    In Iceland and the higher latitudes
    of Norway farmers are growing bar-
    ley in soil that was once frozen for
    seven -months each year
    The American
    geographer, F. E. Matthes, has re-
    ported that ”glaciers in nearly all
    parts of the world receded regularly
    during the last 60 years, but
    especially rapidly during the 1 930-40
    decade.”
    All glaciers examined from Green
    land through Scandinavia to Europe
    are shrinking. And the shrinkage is
    not limited to high latitudes. Some
    glaciers in the European Alps have
    vanished completely. In East Africa,
    the glaciers on three high volcanoes—
    Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya and Ruwenzori
    — have been diminishing since they
    were first observed in 1880. The vast
    Muir Glacier in Alaska’s ; Glacier Bay
    has retreated a full 14 miles’ since
    1902.

  52. “Large numbers of fish will disappear from the tropics by 2050”
    Surely they know that the tropics are an ocean desert and always have been, right?

    • Fish happily hung out in tropical seas during the Cretaceous, Paleocene & Eocene, when oceans were much warmer than now.

  53. The National Audubon Society used the same faulty IPCC model to generate another faulty model forecast of how the birds will move northward and lose their habitat.
    Of course they used that to ask for donations to fight warming, etc.
    Should generate millions for them.

  54. EXCEPT – according to UAH and RSS the tropical lower troposphere
    , between +20N and -20S have not warned since 1979…

  55. So they drift north one inch every five minutes, so what ? It is just what one would expect during the interglacial. Comes the next ice cap, those wily buggers will drift south again.

  56. Kip Hansen
    October 11, 2014 at 9:34 am
    You think that is impressive ? WWF ? it’s as good as Obama’s presidential qualifications.
    Stephen Richards BSc Physic MSc solid State Physics APM, Inst O Physics all retired.
    and I’m not impressed with my own. What impresses me is intelligence, honesty, willing to be proved wrong, looking to improve one’s knowledge and good working experience. Don’t see that in your bio.

    • Not my bio — Dr. Chung’s.
      You’d have to know him personally, or have followed his career carefully, including reading all his published papers, attended his classes and lectures, and maybe gone out drinking with him to collect enough personal information to fulfill your requirements of being impressed. When you’ve done all that, you might qualify to make personal comments about him — but not here if they are negative.
      I bet he doesn’t make negative comments about you — how could he?, he doesn’t know you. I don’t know him at all either.
      So, stick to comments about his work and ideas.
      It is beginning to sound like RealClimate, Joe Romm’s, or Skeptical Science in here — people who don’t know one another calling each other names and issuing ignorant smears against the characters and reputations of others.
      Just not right.

  57. I doubt they did any measurements. The assume fish can only enjoy the exact temperatures they live in now, and the model says that “ideal temperature” will move 26 miles toward the poles each year. They have no idea if the temps are really doing that, and they have no idea if the fish will really move. The fish might really be hanging out there, because they like the available food which isn’t moving.
    If I knew it was so easy to get government grants for this BS, I would have become a postdoc.

  58. I remember the El Niño of 1997~8 changed the fish being served in restaurants in Peru. Not less fish, just different species.

Comments are closed.