Another computer model.
![Mrs.%20Paul's[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/mrs-20pauls1.jpg?resize=400%2C252)
Seafood supply altered by climate change
The global supply of seafood is set to change substantially and many people will not be able to enjoy the same quantity and dishes in the future due to climate change and ocean acidification, according to UBC scientists.
These findings were released today in Japan by the Nereus program, an international research team led by UBC scientists and supported by the Nippon Foundation. The Nereus program was formed to study the future of the world’s oceans and seafood resources. Today it released a summary of the first phase of its research in a report titled ‘Predicting Future Ocean.’ Researchers say that the future supply of seafood will be substantially altered by climate change, overfishing and other human activities.
A video shows the migration of marine species away from their current habitats to the year 2050. Credit -Nereus Program
“The types of fish that we will have on our dinner table will be very different in the future,” said William Cheung, UBC associate professor and the co-director of the Nereus program. “Fisheries will be catching more warm-water species, with smaller size, and that will affect fish supply through our domestic and oversea fisheries as well as imports.”
The report highlighted climate change, ocean acidification, overfishing and destruction of marine ecosystems as the primary drivers of ocean change. Researchers say these changes will lead to a decline in fisheries in many regions and alter marine biodiversity and food web structures.
Researchers say there are solutions to help the ocean and communities prepare for the future. These include improving ocean governance globally to ensure sustainable fisheries and the need to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
“Global marine ecosystems have already been largely altered by overfishing,” said Daniel Pauly, professor at UBC and an advisor to Nereus. “This report clearly points out that any solution needs to deal with the CO2 problem as well.”
###
Nice job, alarmists. You have finally learned to push the impact dates out far enough such that you will never be held accountable for your flawed science and failed predictions.
The British are famous for the “Fish and Chips” lunch. If the cod come from acidified waters, perhaps they will not have to splash vinegar on the chips, as they commonly do?
And the fish will be pre-fried.
By 2050 they say?
I will be dead. Apres nous, le deluge.
Is it just a coincidence that these ‘models’ are put together by the generation brought up with computer video games ?
Have we destroyed the boundary between reality and fantasy in these young minds? Are they forever young minds? Is the video gaming industry so saturated with product that the only way to express one’s coding talent these days in in climate science simulations?
No, no it’s not a coincidence.
That’s a good point. By way of confirmation, when I was in engineering school (class of 2002) a professor lamented the current crop of engineers. He said it used to be engineers grew up fixing bicycles and such and therefore had a very good feel of how things should word – but their math was weak so the professors taught them math. Now he says students come to engineering school with very good math – but they really don’t have a good grasp of engineering principles. I’ll bet that you are right and that something similar is going on with climate scientists.
10 years ago a flat roof flooded at a site where I was working. The engineer and I went out to have a look.
The engineer climbs up on the roof and says ” Quick go get a pump!” to which I replied ” Just move the leaves away from the downspout!” Oh yeah he says. And this guy was actually intelligent. Aced all the tests in University and spoke 5 languages before he was 10 years old. I guess they don’t have a way of teaching common sense in Engineering school.
I once pulled an engineer out of a trench, after he stepped onto a floating hay bale.
Which is not to say his mind couldn’t run circles around mine, it could.
He was my boss, so of course I never brought up the incident.
But he loved to tell the tale, where I just stood there laughing at him before giving him a hand to get out.
Such is life.
“Now he says students come to engineering school with very good math ”
umm… NO, they don’t !!
One of my three brothers in law has a brilliant mind and works on computers doing all sorts of clever things but as his younger brother says his common sense finishes at his elbows, give him a practical problem and he can sort it out but quite often in a very novel way maybe taking more steps and a longer route….The “obvious” answer we see seems to elude him.
James Bull
Many years ago we were trying to lift an engine out of a fork lift trick. the boys rigged a tackle to a roof beam – a bit of 4 ” I beam.
‘Hang on’ I said ‘has anyone calculated whether that will buckle under the weight of that engine?’
‘Don’t need to’ came the reply
‘How so?’
‘Cos we lifted a bigger one on it last year’….
The Cosworth racing engine, famously light ‘we removed metal till it broke, then put the last bit back’.
The Spitfire, famously fast ‘we put chewing gum heads on all the flush rivets, then removed it bit by bit till we got 97% of the speed back, and that told us where we could use cheaper dome rivets’.
Sometimes its easier just to suck it and see, as the actress said the bishop..
Split peas, not chewing gum. We British didn’t have that filthy habit until the GI’s came over.
The Spifire only became “fast” after turbocharging that 33Ltr Merlin V12 engine. It was slower than the Japanese Zero and the German ME109 which had fuel injection. But the “Spit” had a couple of “tricks”. The Hurricane was the better RAF aircraft IMO.
“The Spifire only became “fast” after turbocharging that 33Ltr Merlin V12 “
In fact, Spitfires were never turbocharged.
The big improvement in performance on the Mk. IX came from the fitting of a two stage two speed supercharger.
Yes, I got my forced induction system wrong.
Of course, Climate Change (Globull Warming) was listed first and overfishing listed next to last.
Then a caveat: “Global marine ecosystems have already been largely altered by overfishing,” – what they don’t mention is that continued overfishing will eventually lead to smaller fish due to most adult fish being caught. Less adult fish = lower birth rates.
+10
That is where my first thought went too.
Sorry to see Daniel Pauly is in on this mug’s game. At least he includes the CO almost as an afterthought. CO2 is the least of our problems – indeed it is vanishingly small – where the fisheries are concerned. That being said, there are concerns about what will be the effects re the salmons runs of the very warm weather being enjoyed in BC, Washington, Oregon etc. this summer.
@ vigilant fish. Just exactly what are the perfect conditions for salmon and steelhead? Seems that most important is what is going on in the ocean, I am pretty sure that the planting of water absorbing trees on the stream beds is DRYING OUT the habitat when it was intended to provide shade to be a nursery for fry. Pretty hard for the fry to swim in a stream that has had all its surface water consumed by willows.
“Climate Change” the Winningest Wild card to chuck in the soup.
It;s the one that Deftly Diverts the readers attention as they nod sagely into their latte AND keeps those grant funds flowing…
many people will not be able to enjoy the same quantity and dishes in the future
And if we follow the IPCC’s path, many people will not be able to enjoy staying alive in the future.
That is what they want.
kokoda
Plus several!
Optimum watermelon population of the globe thought [by them] to be half a billion.
Hmmmmmmmm – Six and a biggish lot billion deaths.
I am sure mine is one – but all those little innocent children looking up with trusting eyes, and the babies . . . .
And the abandoned kittens and puppies.
GAH! And the watermelons want them all dead!
We can see where the w/melons want to go with their [insert – pejorative is OK – adjective of choice] philosophy.
Auto
The children just aren’t going to know what fishsticks are.
Children? “Fish stick” sounds more like an adolescent game I re-member …
That would be such a shame. We had a restaurant a while back which advertized a special for the day of ‘Fish Stick Casserole’. Guess they’ll have to find another dinner special when it gets warmer.
Good one – Don’t know about anyone else, but I immediately saw this a a parody on the ‘snow’ fear-mongering.
Funny, I never thought distilled water which has a ph of 7.0 or lower than sea water’s 7.7 level was acidic.
Really it’s closer to 8.1 in most of the open ocean top 300 meters. Overturning and localized upwellings change localized pH more than any modelled pCO2 pH projections.
Another stupid cpmputer model but there will be more of them because the climate conference in Paris comes nearer.
As I have noticed in peer reviewed papers a reference to CAGW is essential for funding but sometimes the content conflicts with the title or summary.
Max
I’ll be dead in 2050, unless they find a cure for old age. Oh, wait — is aging caused by climate change?
Yes, it must be, because as the climate changes everyone gets older, and when the climate changes from the changes everyone will still be getting older.
I think certain climate science has settled that correlation does in fact equal causation, so, yes, ageing is caused by climate change. And climate change is caused by ageing. Whatever. Whatever brings in the sweet, sweet grant money.
Yes, that must be the reason for so many old people in Florida.
Speak for yourself I am still spry and live in Florida.
Ahhh, but “spry” is a relative term. In fact, it is usually used in conjunction with old people.
i.e.: “he is pretty spry for an old man”
and the warmists are promising them they WILL BE DROWNED! That not a very nice thing to tell old folks.
There is certainly a close correlation between the last thirty years of climate change and the fact that I seem to be older now than I was thirty years ago.
RoHa
I’ve noticed that too.
Can I sue The Nobel Laureate [and possible Jim’ll Fix It badge holder] the sainted Professor Doctor Engineer Cardinal [apologies for cutting short the great God’s full titles – some are secret] M. Mann?
Now UBC is home turf for the likes of David Suzuki, who has a water front home nearby, and Andrew Weaver. UBC is in British Columbia, think California north. Now these scientists should be studying skinny dipping in acidic waters since right beside the uni is Wreck Beach a famous nude beach I am sure these scientist are aware of. Now that would be an epic study, public funds to hang out on a nude beach studying acidic effects on nudism. The angle of the dangle depends on level of acidity, and in fifty years?
NC at July 1 9:44 am
Actually Andrew Weaver is from the University of Victoria. Please don’t disparage my old Alma Mater with his name. He is involved with the Pacific Institute. He currently is a sitting MLA for the Green Party for the riding of Oak Bay in Victoria. When ever you see his name on a paper, you should probably stop reading if you have high blood pressure.
I am old enough to have taken classes from David Suzuki at UBC when studying microbiology for pollution control and other things for my engineering degree. Course one of our projects was making beer. He isn’t all bad.
The take away from this paper is this line:
“The report highlighted
climate change, ocean acidification,overfishing and destruction of marine ecosystems as the primary drivers of ocean change.There, fixed it, IMHO.
Happy Canada Day.
By 2050 I imagine the bulk of our seafood will come from farms. On land, everything from poultry to pork to beef to raspberries, bananas, peas, beans, wheat and rice comes from farms. The specific genetic strains are selected and modified to maximize production in the growing conditions available, supplemented by fertilizers, control of weeds and diseases, and production is higher now than it has ever been, as is quality of the food. Food born diseases are a rarity now, and as for supply, obesity related health problems lead the list in most developed countries, you figure out what that means about supply.
To assumed that food harvesting techniques in the ocean will remain static is, at best, silly. At worst, willful ignorance. Fish farming is already catching on and as other species are similarly dealt with, we will see the same thing we have seen on land. An order of magnitude increase in abundance, diversity and quality.
And there’s nothing that climate change can do to stop it.
Agree. Tilapia is everywhere. Heck, I raise my own Rainbow trout. I expect we will see more “on land” fish farming to control effluent and management of the fish. No brainer in my mind.
Until the next long term freeze.
I assume you mean “food borne” diseases are rare. Diseases born of food, especially obesity, are more broadly developed than ever.
As for farming, crops in the sea are easier to harvest than on land, but harder to cultivate or to keep within a certain territory. “Property” rights are more entangled in enforcement organizations and treaties, which is a net gain for big government. I agree technologies will grow in “a fish in sea”, but technicalities will grow in “bureaucra-sea”.
When emotionalism and tribalism rule over industry and business, hearts and clubs trump spades and diamonds.
How do fish know what year it is?
Well, fishing is going to collapse soon, but not due to any external influence. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the fishing industry with massive, planetwide overfishing having signifcantly decreased schools and selected for smaller fish. This has been well known for years without having to invoke the bugbear of ocean acidification.
When someone says that we’ve known for years that something is going to collapse soon, it tells me there is at least some exaggeration going. If we knew “years ago” that it was going to happen “soon,” shouldn’t it have happened by now? It reminds me of peak oil, over-population, runaway global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, China syndrome, and all the other alarmist scares du jour.
Ask a Newfoundland Cod fisherperson if it has happened yet while they stare at their boat tied to the dock…
Ask a Newfoundland Cod fisherperson
====================
Move over ISIS. Fisheries Canada in action. Even more powerful than Climate Change. Destroying fish stocks one coastline at a time.
Here we go again. [Sigh]
Again, projections are set to a distant future while people cannot predict 5 years in advance ( or 4, or 3, or even 2).
It used to be called witchcraft.
As I wrote on another post, the warmists and ourselves are in agreement that there has been no warming for 18.5 years, therefore no study can make any predictions other than with a result of stasis. How will ocean ph rise if the temperatures aren’t going up? Also aren’t gases less soluble in water when temperature increases?
Off topic but typical. We had our highest temperature ever recorded in the UK at 14:50 today of 37.7 Celsius, where was the temperature measured? Heathrow Airport, London, a vast heat island!
Regarding Andre says…Off topic but typical. We had our highest temperature ever recorded in the UK at 14:50 today of 37.7 Celsius, where was the temperature measured? Heathrow Airport, London, a vast heat island!
=================================================
Highest ever? Hottest ever at one site with massive UHI. The days T went slightly outside the 95 percentile, but nowhere near the record…
The scientific method has failed to constrain secular speculation outside of a limited frame of reference. They could at least have the integrity to frame it as a risk management problem.
“integrity”…that’s not a real word.
You made that word up, didn’t you?
Question: If climate change scare hurts sea birds and sharks, will that help fish? Run the model again.
Haven’t you heard about North Carolina? Heck the Sharks are on the move. They even nailed a banker!
Let me know when they get a lawyer, now THAT would be newsworthy!
As it turns out, we vegetarians are not overly concerned about this one. 🙂
Part of the reason the fish stocks are in terrible shape is due to the fish reduction industry – fishmeal is used not only as feed but also for nutritional supplements and as fertilizer. Vegetarians may suffer indirectly.
The ocean is a buffered solution held inside a basaltic alkaline container… We need not worry that our realitvely tiny amount of CO2 emissions will mysteriously make the ocean “acidic”…
There are currently about 38,500 gigatons of Carbon in the oceans held as carbonic acid. Since 1750, man has emitted about 560 gigatons of Carbon in the form of CO2 and ocean pH has only decreased from 8.2 to 8.1 over the past 265 years.
65 million years ago, the oceans held about 190,000 gigatons of Carbon and ocean pH was around 7.8 or so…which is still alkaline and was not in any way a problem to sea life, which thrived.
Since CAGW’s catastrophic projections of: global warming, severe weather incidence/severity, polar ice disappearance, sea level rise, crop yields, diseases, etc., are now so hilariously devoid from reality, the warmunists have no other choice but ride their “ocean acidification” hobby horse for all it’s worth as that’s about all they got left to flog.
CAGW has become an embarrassment to science.
Per-xactly, Samurai!
I have a favourite way of putting “OA” in a perspective that puzzles some people.
Following a quick explanation of buffering, solubility of CO2 v’s temperature and how limestone and shells are formed; I point out that we should be worried about fresh rain water (pH around 5.8) not to mention that glass of red wine (pH 3.4)!
May I use your description “basaltic alkaline container…”?
We (sceptics) should NOT be using the word ‘acidification’. It is defined in dictionaries as the act of acidifying something – turning a solution (for example) INTO AN ACID. Making something less alkaline is NOT acidification, it simply isn’t.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acidification
This is even worse than saying ‘pause’! I don’t care what anyone ‘thinks’, you cannot alter the English language that easy.
Just develop a taste for Asian carp — plenty of them. No need to fish, they’ll just jump in your boat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_carps
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/7/newsid_2506000/2506347.stm
http://www1.american.edu/ted/icefish.htm
Now if only the Brits had Admirals Jellicoe and Beatty, all this overfishing nonsense could be quickly settled.
Kidding aside overfishing is a problem, and I fear in times to come things could get worse then the two above examples.
Oh and climate change has nothing to do with it. Just mismanagement of a renewable resource
michael
New sunspot numbers have arrived and they are BIG
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
Define ‘big’.
140%, 167% or even 190% of the old values. (?!)
They [University of British Columbia], are quite right on one aspect – man made is what fish stock depletion is all about, on the means – they are so far off – it can only be described as an ocean going stupidity.
Deep sea trawler fleets hunting with enormous factory ships, dredging the sea bed, decimating the food chain from phytoplankton and sand eels all the way up to predating [fishing] the top species and massively over fishing – cause fish stocks to fall off a cliff and will turn the oceans into dead seas.
The other ph problem …….is a figment of alarmists wildest imaginings.
“Nereus program”
Is there a list somewhere of all these “organizations” (all government-funded in one way or another, I’ll bet) purporting to care and issue studies about climate change and lobby for agreements and more money?
The latest event to make me wonder about this was the supposed recent agreement between Ontario, Quebec and California, whatever that thing was.
“Global marine ecosystems have already been largely altered by overfishing,” said Daniel Pauly, professor at UBC and an advisor to Nereus. “This report clearly points out that any solution needs to deal with the CO2 problem as well.”
A sales pitch, nothing less. As usual.
Socialism – the tragedy of the commons – is going to create this crisis, not global warming.
MATRIX 147 is a group with an experienced hackers. My team & I can hack any EMAIL ID.
(Yahoo,gmx, Gmail, Hotmail, Rocketmail, Sina, Facebook, Instagram,AOl, Outlook etc),irrespective of the reason,ie monitoring cheating spouses, protecting a family member, get you compromised account back, delete a mail you don t want the target to get, payback or whatever personal or non-personal reason you may have for a reasonable fee.
Send us a mail matrixhackka007 (@) gmail / dot/ com +13128343470
We try to reply every client ASAP & execute the project in the quickest time-frame
MATRIX007
Yawn
When are they going to blame the Confederate flag on Climate Change?
Ya ain’t got enough drama in your life ??
I’m sure I can add some more.
That would be after the organisation that originated the Confederate flag (and actively acted to retain institutional racism)is banned.
Hypocricy is alive and well throughout the world.
here’s a question
how much money could I pay you
That would be enough for you to get onboard the climate change/global warming bandwagon???
I’d like to propose an editorial standard for this website. The use of the term “ocean acidification” should be discouraged, because it is false. The ocean has a pH greater than 7.0, which means that it is basic. As long as it’s basic, it is not acidic, and something becoming less basic is not the same as that something being “acidified.” It is being neutralized. That is the correct, true term. Acidification is deliberately misleading when used by climate alarmists, and I see no point to repeat their misleading and false terminology.
Of course, it’s not my website, so all I can do is make a suggestion.
Words mean…whatever. The trend is to redefine words and phrases to provoke anxiety and animosity.
How can a believer that climate is changing logically be labeled a “climate change denier?”
Some claim “acidification” means a trend towards being acidic. But the definition of acidification is “become acid,” something seawater isn’t likely to do without some disaster that will wipe out humanity regardless of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
You are wrong, the correct term is not ‘neutralization’, that refers to adding exactly enough acid (or base) to a solution to render it exactly neutral (pH =7 at 25ºC). ‘Acidification’ refers to adding acid to a solution and thereby increasing the H+ ion concentration and making the solution more acidic, it does not mean that the final endpoint is acid.
Oxford, American Heritage, Mirriam-Webster, and Stedman’s Medical all agree…
Acidification: To make acid.
Neutralization: To make neutral.
Alkalization: To make alkaline.
You must be using the Post-Normal dictionary…
Acidification: To make a little less alkaline. Sea life die! die! die!
One has to make it neutral before it can be acidified. In no other context is lowering the pH of a basic solution termed “acidification.” I am a scientist, by the way, and work in an advanced research part of the government. What is your profession?
And to verdeviewer, I respond that the warmongers are right when they exhort their fellow travelers to “control the language.” When you control that, you control the debate. This is one term that is not in question by a “consensus.”
Well I thought sardines would always be there. However, at least on the west coast, sardines are in such trouble that fishing for them is being denied. First thought maybe primarily from overfishing but then there is this:
Don McIsaac, the management council executive director, said sardine populations often fluctuate, and cold water over the past three or four years has lowered the birth rate.
“Sardines like warm water,” McIsaac said, adding that staff biologists ruled out overfishing as a cause. “Their spawning plummets when it gets cold.”
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sardine-population-collapses-prompts-ban-on-6197380.php
Who woulda thought…….
The way man is raping the Oceans now will make any study referring to 2050 redundant!!
Let them eat Lobster, instead.
When we will do “solid” basic research, however, (usually) we get these conclusions:
“There were no statistically significant effects of ocean warming and acidification, whether in isolation or combined, on the concentrations of nutrients, particulate organic matter, chl a and most of the photosynthetic pigments.”
“Rates of gross primary production … … were significantly higher under elevated temperature …”
“… ocean acidification has a very limited impact on the plankton community and that small species will benefit from warming …” (Maugendre et al., 2014.)
Although Australia actually imports about 70% of its seafood and the other 30% is caught in sustainably managed fisheries – and despite there being no scientific, social or economic reason for more zones, the leftist Labor Government when in power in Australia imposed three huge new net-free areas off Cairns, Mackay and the Yeppoon/Keppel Bay/Fitzroy River region of the Capricorn Coast.
Just an example of yet more leftist regulations. Less fishing means less fish. A no-brainer.
Acidic oceans (salt) diluted by rain (acidic on the PH scale), egad 😉
One nice thing about long term predictions is that by the time the date arrives, almost everyone has forgotten your silly flawed prediction.
Please tell me WHY they believe, and want us to believe, in man-made global warming if it isn’t really true? Are they all stupid? Or really really devious?
Hard to believe but it could be accurate that in time most of our seafood will come from farms