Another computer model.
![Mrs.%20Paul's[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/mrs-20pauls1.jpg?quality=83)
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.”
###
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 (@ur momisugly) 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