Ridiculous $1.4M Yale study creates 'fictitious fishing communities' to model future fish stock & economic changes


From the department of wasted grant money and YALE SCHOOL OF FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, comes this models gone wild fish story moment, bold mine:

Global warming will drive vast, unpredictable shift in natural wealth

Examination of shifting fish stocks illustrates potential net loss in global wealth

Many studies have shown that critical natural resources, including fish stocks, are moving poleward as the planet warms. A new Yale-led study suggests that these biophysical changes are also reallocating global wealth in unpredictable, and potentially destabilizing, ways.

On its surface, these biophysical movements will shift resources from communities and nations closer to the equator into places closer to the poles. In many cases this would seem to exacerbate inequalities between richer and poorer communities.

But writing in the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers suggest that the impacts on net global wealth may not be that straightforward. In fact, they make the case that changes are more likely than not to produce an overall net loss in global wealth.

The reason, says lead author Eli Fenichel, is the inevitable and unpredictable price impacts in places where the quantities of fish stocks increase depending on the quality of its resource management, existing institutions, and fishing regulations.

“People are mostly focused on the physical reallocation of these assets, but I don’t think we’ve really started thinking enough about how climate change can reallocate wealth and influence the prices of those assets,” said Fenichel, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “We think these price impacts can be really, really important.”

“We don’t know how this will unfold, but we do know there will be price effects. It’s just Economics 101 — prices reflect quantity and scarcity and natural capital is hard for people to move,” he said. “It’s as inevitable as the movement of these fish species.”

These impacts on the value of natural capital highlight the need for coherent climate policies that integrate biophysical and social measurements, the authors say.

The study was conducted by researchers at Yale, Rutgers, Princeton, and Arizona State universities.

The paper illustrates how the inclusive wealth framework advocated by UNEP and the World Bank makes it possible to measure the shift in the amounts and distribution of wealth as a consequence of climate change, when coupled with approaches to value natural capital developed by Fenichel and others. As an example, the researchers used fish migration data collected by Malin Pinsky, an assistant professor at Rutgers and co-author of the study.

“We tend to think of climate change as just a problem of physics and biology,” Pinsky said. “But people react to climate change as well, and at the moment we don’t have a good understanding for the impacts of human behavior on natural resources affected by climate change.”

To illustrate their case, the authors model potential outcomes in two fictitious fishing communities (Northport and Southport) in the face of climate-driven shifts in fish populations. Southport’s fish stocks decline as the climate changes while Northport’s stock increases; it’s a scenario that reflects changes anticipated in areas such as the mid-Atlantic and the waters off New England in the eastern U.S.

According to their analysis, if fish quantities increase in a northern community, for instance, it will likely cause a devaluation of that resource locally, particularly if that community isn’t equipped to manage the resource efficiently. “If the northern community isn’t a particularly good steward or manager, they’re going to place a low value on that windfall they just inherited,” Fenichel said. “So the aggregate could go down.”

“To be clear, the ‘gainers’ here are clearly better off,” he said. “They’re just not more better off than the losers are worse off. The losers are losing much more than the gainers are gaining. And when that happens, it’s not an efficient reallocation of wealth.”

The analysis suggests that policy discussions around climate change should address how the physical changes will affect wealth reallocation, rather than allowing nature to redistribute this wealth in an unpredictable, “willy-nilly” manner.

“It also points to a greater need for the physical sciences and social sciences to be done in a coordinated fashion,” Fenichel said. “As much as scientists are doing lots of wonderful multidisciplinary research, I don’t know that we’re necessarily collecting the kinds of data, in a coordinated fashion, that will inform the emerging metrics of sustainability.”


The project is one of several being conducted as part of a $1.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation.

Wow, look at the conclusions:

“To be clear, the ‘gainers’ here are clearly better off,” he said. “They’re just not more better off than the losers are worse off. The losers are losing much more than the gainers are gaining. And when that happens, it’s not an efficient reallocation of wealth.”

Such stellar leaps of science acumen the world has never seen; fictitious fishing communities with more fish are “clearly better off”. Gosh. Thank goodness we have Yale around to tell us this sort of thing.

How this stinker ever got funded, much less published is a sad commentary on NSF and science.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 24, 2016 3:16 pm

Just how much do fish migrate in response to a 0.01C increase in water temperature?

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2016 4:25 pm

As a long time salt water fly fishing fanatic, with over 40 years of fishing the Sea of Cortez, I can tell these yelling Yalies that in my experience the hotter the water is, the better the fishing is.
Nobody I know of goes to Antarctica to fly fish for either food or game fishes; we all head for the tropics.

David A
Reply to  george e. smith
February 24, 2016 4:36 pm

Alaska has some pretty good fish as well.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 24, 2016 8:02 pm

You need to broaden your horizons George, there are plenty of us who head polewards for amazing fly fishing! Alaska has already been mentioned, one of my colleagues had a fantastic time in Patagonia, which has now joined New Zealand on my bucket list!
If you want to get nearer to the pole you could try the NW Territories up by the Arctic Circle:

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  george e. smith
February 25, 2016 2:04 am

Well given Antarctica has no flies fly fishing is unlikely to work and last time I checked nobody caught cod or mackerel using artificial flies tied to a hook. However there are large commercial fisheries in Antarctic waters that are regulated to prevent overfishing. The Krill fisheries alone land some 150,000 tons per year and are expanding.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 25, 2016 3:30 am

Keith, you’d be surprised what fish are caught on artificial flies (frequently imitating small fish, not insects).
Here’s an article on catching mackerel on a fly.

Reply to  george e. smith
February 25, 2016 9:31 am

But.. but…. by 2100 there may be no fish at the Equator.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 11:43 am

Well I am one of a good number of fly fishermen, who can claim to have come ‘ this close ‘ to boating the elusive 200 # tarpon on a fly rod.
I hooked mine, in about 12 feet of gin clear water, at Homosassa Fla. and had it rolled upside down alongside the boat in about 15 minutes. We could have put a kill gaff in it, and tossed it on the deck, but my guide thought it was still too green and too big for him to wrestle with. He didn’t want to get tossed out of the boat and end up in the water with the fish and a sharp gaff. Well I was against bringing that fish ashore anyway.
So when the fish got a fresh mouthful of air, and tried one final lunge, I pulled back on it to stop it, and I broke the 15# tournament grade tippet, which had a wind knot in it, that we didn’t notice. I had already released a 120 # er. and cast the same fly out to the big horse, and didn’t notice the knot. Neither did my guide. He was PO’d. Never said a word to me, for the rest of the day, or the next day. Then at dinner on the second day, he blurted out: “That fish would have done it George.” He was mad because he hadn’t checked for a knot in my line, before I cast again. Said the fish was well over the 200. Somebody finally did catch one. Good for the fish, because people don’t kill 150 pounders any more.
I’ll wait till I’m old enough Phil to go and try those North West Territory fisheries.
Not old enough for trout either.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 11:53 am

Keith Willshaw
February 25, 2016 at 2:04 am
Well given Antarctica has no flies fly fishing is unlikely to work ….. “”””
Well Keith, you just don’t understand. We ‘ match the hatch ‘ , and if the striped marlin, is chasing foot long baby dorado’s, well we throw a foot long baby dorado fly at them.
And we can make a good looking krill fly to fish for anything that eats krill in Antarctica.
I imagine that king penguins fight about the same as pelicans do. But pelicans are pretty easy to release without damage.
My 200 + tarpon ate a ” cockroach ” fly about two inches long on 4-O hook, that mimics a small species of squid, that they get in Atlantic tropic waters.
Come to think of it, I bet a king penguin would pull pretty well, till it ran out of air. Trouble is, you would have to fight them to the boat to retrieve the fly so they don’t break you off, with a hook in their beak.

Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2016 4:25 pm

Worse, how much do fish migrate in response to a 0.01C increase in AIR temperature?

Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2016 11:58 am

Depends if they read the IPCC reports.

February 24, 2016 3:21 pm

“Watermelons” seems appropriate here.

February 24, 2016 3:26 pm

It just doesn’t get any fishier than this. What utter bilge!

Reply to  Michael Sweny
February 25, 2016 5:48 am

Science Fiction. Defined as a “what if?” speculative scenario. This kind of thinking can be applied to absolutely anything. What we need to keep doing is put the ACTUAL information out there so citizens can educate themselves enough to self-debunk crap like this “study”–and stop funding same.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 25, 2016 1:21 pm

UNEP Financial Initiative
UNEPFI, Est.1992 at the Rio Earth Summit.
Large U.S. and Canadian banks and insurance companies have pledged to fund renewables.
More information at: http://www.unepfi/about/structure/secretariat and follow the links to the Members list.
INSEAD, Feb.4, 2016 France Est.1957, Business school.
“The UNs International Agreement To Limit Greenhouse Gas Gas Emissions Could Change The Way Pension Funds Invest Money”
Money has to be shifted from carbon investments to non-carbon investments. Banks, insurance and pensions are large poos of money needed for the renewable energy sector.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 25, 2016 1:25 pm

“Poos” not intended but you get the message. should be “pools’

February 24, 2016 3:26 pm

Got it. They modeled fish based on what they believe and the models supported their beliefs.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 24, 2016 3:30 pm

Perfectly stated!

Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 24, 2016 8:26 pm

In order to get an overall deficit, they had to assume that the port which got the better fishing was incompetent. On that basis, they didn’t need to change the temperature or move the fish at all – they could simply assume that all fishereople would get progressively less competent.
What is really odd about their assumption is that they are happy to apply to some that which they will not apply to others. Now, if they simply assumed that climate scientists get progressively less competent, then they could generate some respectable findings.

February 24, 2016 3:31 pm

This will be good for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. (in 200 years – maybe)
Who the h-ll has money to burn for this kind of crap? Makes me crazy.

Reply to  brianjohn
February 24, 2016 4:37 pm

funded by NSF. The answer – you do.

average joe
Reply to  DHR
February 24, 2016 7:47 pm

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa!!! I can’t take it anymore! They’re burnin’ MY money for this crap! Future President Trump, please FIRE these a-holes at NSF that love to waste other people’s hard earned dollars! Future Trumpian congress, please reduce the NSF budget by 90%, and make it law that ALL NSF-funded research grants must be approved by a bi-partisan congressional subcommittee prior to funding! Only then can we begin the national healing process.

February 24, 2016 3:34 pm

BS. Fishing regulations will make sure the losers loose less and the winners win less than this study assumes. That’s what lobbyists are for.

Mike the Morlock
February 24, 2016 3:39 pm

Well lets first look at “who” it is writing the “study”
Forestry, hmmm, last I checked forests have trees not fish. Oceans have fish.
I wonder if any of these people have ever even been on a boat in the fog on long island sound, let alone fishing in the Atlantic.
Do they even know which ethnic groups make up the fishermen these days?

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 25, 2016 5:49 am

I’m betting not a one of the little geeks have ever even experienced dirt under their fingernails.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 25, 2016 7:48 am

Do you think these people really care about ethnic groups of any kind. They are all in the endgame to rule and ruin everyone’s lives, especially the poor. These guys are just part of a growing bunch of alarmists trying to get their share of the booty.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 25, 2016 6:21 pm

Basswood trees have fish! I modelled it. Besides, if fish leave an area we can make it a “safe zone” and give everyone a trophy.

Dave O.
February 24, 2016 3:39 pm

The government tells the “scientists”: Give us a “study” that links global warming to something bad.
The “scientists” respond by giving the government what it wants, thus insuring a steady flow of money in the “scientists” direction in the future.

Bill Illis
February 24, 2016 3:39 pm

Congress should defund all the climate change research money at the NSF.
Just think how many more studies there will be now of fake south community versus north community impacts for any 1,000 possible industries. This is mega gravy train territory because they will never run out of climate change scenarios to run this on. And then there is biosphere impacts. Even the cockroaches will get one.

February 24, 2016 3:40 pm

How do you derive a standard unit of fish wealth? People could pay more for different colour, at the whim of dietary fads. The fish supply itself effects its own value.

February 24, 2016 3:43 pm

Where in the world does the statement, “Many studies have shown that critical natural resources, including fish stocks, are moving poleward as the planet warms.” come from.
I have never heard a peep about “many” fish migration due to global warming. I can’t believe we are paying for this over intellectualized nonsense.

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
February 24, 2016 5:10 pm

Well you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. I suggest you look up the NE Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery and how far north it has moved in recent years. Also the marine species distribution has been shown to be moving polewards by about 72km per decade. That you haven’t heard a ‘peep’ about this is a measure of your lack of knowledge.

Reply to  Phil.
February 24, 2016 6:04 pm

And your references to these statements are??? Here I will put it in for you. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1958.html
Pay walled, but the abstract suggests it all.
“Here, we synthesized all available studies of the consistency of marine ecological observations with expectations under climate change. This yielded a meta-database of 1,735 marine biological responses for which either regional or global climate change was considered as a driver.”
So they looked at all Pal reviewed studies that confirm their opinion that climate change is making marine species migrate then agreed with their conclusions and calculated their average migration distance per decade. This is not science it is a group of people with similar beliefs patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. I call it a religion or sect.

Reply to  Phil.
February 24, 2016 8:29 pm

The supplementary methods and results make for mind-blowing reading!
Supplementary Methods & Results PDF file available here
I’m running out of ‘superlatives’ to describe the complete and utter brainlessness that passes for peer-reviewed climate science.
The paper is a meta-analysis in which they redefined the term “observation”:

What is an observation?
We defined an observation as one where a biological response was, at a minimum, discussed in relation to expected impacts of climate change.

The following paragraph is so astounding I just have to quote it in full:

We captured both single-species and multi-species studies of marine biological responses, including null responses, and counted seabird, anadromous fish and polar bear studies as marine given their reliance on marine food sources. We defined the primary climate variable as the one identified by the authors as having the strongest relationship, or inferred as having the strongest relationship, with the biological observation. We selected all studies that focused on climate change regardless of whether the primary climate variable was temperature, sea ice, pH or “climate oscillation” such as the North Atlantic Oscillation index or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. 90% of the 208 studies identified temperature as the primary climate driver and 6% identified sea ice. Climate oscillations were included only where changes in their indices have been explicitly linked to global warming (3 studies28-30).

I need to go have a lie down now, I’m feeling sick in the stomach! 😉

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 8:04 am

I don’t know why the fish colonies are moving north or ift your source of information is credible, since you didn’t list sources for this claim. However, if you had been watching the global SST anomaly for a while, you would have watched as the North Pacific hot spot and the El Niño have rapidly fallen off in the last few months. Meanwhile, the amount of gray and blue on the Unisys chart has been growing by the week in both hemisphere’s. It makes me doubt any claim of fish colonies moving north to escape the so-called heat. Perhaps they will be moving south in a couple of years to escape the below normal temperatures of the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.

george e. smith
Reply to  Phil.
February 26, 2016 3:50 pm

Don’t critters including fish tend to move to where there is some occupiable space ?
If fishing fleets plunder the bait fishes like herring and mackerel, to make omega 3 oils for yuppies, that is going to leave empty waters where new fishes can move into.
So is it the human fisheries or is it some microscopic temperature changes.
Plants tend to migrate uphill to cooler places which are less occupied, because that’s where blowing seeds can land on soil to grow in, rather than land on a plant that already is growing there.

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
February 24, 2016 9:08 pm

In 1922 the Arctic warmed and seals and fish moved northward. Then, I would guess, when it cooled they moved southward.
These warming and cooling cycles come and go on a somewhat regular basis.
Nothing new here!

February 24, 2016 3:47 pm

…Hmmmm, I wonder what fictitious fish taste like ! LOL

Reply to  Marcus
February 24, 2016 4:12 pm

…Hmmmm, I wonder what fictitious fish taste like !

CHICKEN! … Well somebody had to say it.

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
February 26, 2016 3:56 pm

Well New Zealand green shell mussels have a reputation for reducing the demand for those pitiful Prince Edward Island excuse for a shell fish.
I don’t know of anybody who once having had green shell mussels, ever ordered those Canadian fish bait things again.
Same gose for the California black mussels too. Not worth cracking open the shell.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 26, 2016 4:05 pm

Well maybe those fish moving north can all go lunch on the PEI black micro mussels.
The pink or white flesh inside a NZ green shell mussel is way bigger than the shell of those PEI midges.
Let the migrant fishes eat them.
Sergeant majors can learn how to eat rock oysters, after you have popped the lid off just two of them with a screw driver.

Curious George
February 24, 2016 3:48 pm

Ivy League now means a Green League.

Reply to  Curious George
February 25, 2016 4:57 am

Almost 70 crew remain stranded on Aurora Australis icebreaker as AAD confirms ship suffered hull breach. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-25/aurora-australis-salvage-plans-revealed-by-aad/7198392

February 24, 2016 3:53 pm

Just tax the crap out of the producers and send the money to the former producers. There problem solved. oh I forgot, when you send money to a government it gets lost, stolen, misappropriated or mismanaged. Never mind

Gary Pearse
February 24, 2016 4:07 pm

Economics 101 indeed! I don’t believe they even have 101 under their belts. I will say, it tells me that Ec 101 is exactly the depth they went to. Climate 101 is basically the entire curriculum of this science: one immutable linear equation and we have over 100,000 papers on it. It’s like having 100,000 papers on how long it takes to a ball to fall from the clock tower at Harvard (I’m assuming they have such a thing.
We used to laugh about 4th tier universities having basket weaving degrees and now we have the illustrious Harvard with a forestry and environment faculty! This stuff used to be community college stuff. Although the community college forestry folks wouldn’t be doing economic studies of fisheries under a changing ocean! This is more of the strange world of climate science. Hey, they have no boundaries in what they can do, and this is mainly because it is such a juvenile level of study. I’m surprised it isn’t $5,000 study. Who in the name of good sense accepted a proposal from the Harvard Forestry School for 1.4 million. I’d like to see the accounting for expenditures!!! I think a Harvard degree is truly worthless these days except to meet the standards and requirements of the lefty ruling class. Where are the alumnae on this disgraceful stuff. I bet they have those little criss-cross supply demand price graphs – please say it ain’t so!!

Don Perry
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2016 4:27 pm

Yale, not Harvard.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2016 6:10 pm

Apart from the fact that this department is in Yale not Harvard, the Forestry School was founded in 1900 and faculty members from before then were instrumental in the development of the resources of the American West. One of the founders of the school created the USDA Forest Service in the Roosevelt Administration and was its first chief. Your equating it with ‘community college stuff’ is and indiction of your complete lack of knowledge.

Reply to  Phil.
February 24, 2016 9:14 pm

Phil: Perhaps before the bogus global warming / climate change nonsense became the driving force for these universities, they probably did do good work. What these people spew now is lower than ‘community college stuff’.
Get your head out of the sand!

Reply to  Phil.
February 27, 2016 8:35 pm

“Your equating it with ‘community college stuff’ is and indiction of your complete lack of knowledge.”
Complete lack of knowledge? . . Still in school, eh?

Douglas of Perf
February 24, 2016 4:08 pm

Pavlov’s fish?

Werner Brozek
February 24, 2016 4:09 pm

And should the oceans actually warm up by 1 C in 430 years, would the fish even notice since they are cold blooded?

Reply to  Werner Brozek
February 25, 2016 6:07 am

When talking about major fisheries which have seen significant changes in fish populations recently, we’re talking about much faster temperature change than that. The observations for the North Sea are 1.3ºC over the last 30 years. Cod, mackerel, herring populations have shifted north and warmer water fish such as Red Mullet have moved in from the south. It’s not just the fish but the food sources such as plankton change in response to temperature which is particularly important for the larval fish and can have a huge effect on recruitment and hence on population distributions.

David A
Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 7:06 am

You are talking strictly sea surface T, which has always had great variability.

Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 9:07 am

Just because sst varies doesn’t mean it hasn’t increased over time, nor does it mean that such a change won’t effect the distribution of fish. Especially when those measurements have been made during the breeding season and correlate well with recruitment.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 12:06 pm

So the plankton doesn’t follow the temperature change. Good to know. /s

February 24, 2016 4:09 pm

An overestimation of fish stock recovery calculated by the Canadian Standard Fisheries computer models was the cause of the collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery. Bad data collection and wrong computer models caused one of the worst ecological disasters of the XXth century. You may think we learned the lesson, well, some didn’t.

February 24, 2016 4:19 pm

A new Yale-led study suggests that these biophysical political changes are also reallocating global wealth in unpredictable, and potentially destabilizing, ways.


Chris Hanley
February 24, 2016 4:22 pm

I guess the model runs the other way in the Southern Hemisphere — like the water down the plughole.

February 24, 2016 4:24 pm

I did my own study that found that climate models that aren’t correlated to real measured climate data cause an overall net loss in global common sense. And that study I did without a grant.

Phil's Dad
February 24, 2016 4:30 pm

“To be clear, the ‘gainers’ here are clearly better off,” he said. “They’re just not more better off than the losers are worse off. The losers are losing much more than the gainers are gaining. And when that happens, it’s not an efficient reallocation of wealth.”
Isn’t that just the normal tax system?

Reply to  Phil's Dad
February 24, 2016 9:16 pm

And isn’t this the Paris agreement…move da money from da rich to da poor.

February 24, 2016 4:31 pm

Well, this is one more excuse for not catching fish. I need all I can get. So, it is good for something, I suppose.

February 24, 2016 4:42 pm

Not sure which is the worse entity to take on: The NRA , or sport fisherman.
Are these people just gluttons for punishment or what ?

Michael Jankowski
February 24, 2016 4:47 pm

You’re missing the point of the conclusions…the “obvious” part is to get you to agree with them. Then they throw-in. “And when that happens, it’s not an efficient reallocation of wealth.” So now you agree and feel badly. Rich got richer and poor got poorer, but money disappeared as well, so we lose overall! We need everyone to win and by the same amount.

Craig Moore
February 24, 2016 4:49 pm


Reply to  Marcus
February 24, 2016 6:27 pm

Hey man, you triggered me without an appropriate warning!
That comment was made in my safe zone, and now I am inconsolably offended.
And why are they singling out brown university students anyway?
/sarc off

Reply to  Menicholas
February 24, 2016 6:33 pm


Reply to  Menicholas
February 25, 2016 5:51 am

Global warming must be the cause of why my cats are peeing in the pantry. Can I get a grant?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 26, 2016 5:40 am

You are seeing the Cat Conspiracy To Pee. Be grateful it isn’t on your bed, too.

February 24, 2016 5:19 pm

Was Yogi Berra one of the authors?

February 24, 2016 6:40 pm

“It’s as inevitable as the movement of these fish species.”
You can’t make this sort of nonsense up!

Steve O
February 24, 2016 7:06 pm

“Our hypothesis, that commercially viable fish species will migrate somewhat north and south when ocean waters warm (as they do in El Nino years) from off the coasts of poor Latin American and African countries to the North American, European and Australian coasts is easily modeled, and can therefore be used as another area where UN, WMF and other blood bank elitests of the NWO can prove the need for International intervention to transfer more wealth from Canada,Australia, the US and the EEC to emerging markets. And we get paid to do this! Wheee!”

February 24, 2016 7:55 pm

the real question here is not whether this assessment is accurate
but whether it can be related to fossil fuel emissions.

Tom in Florida
February 24, 2016 8:13 pm

““They’re just not more better off than the losers are worse off. ”
That there is some mighty find use of them there language words. I wonder if there was a more better way to say it.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2016 8:18 pm

..Nah, it was betterest theys culd due !

Reply to  Marcus
February 26, 2016 5:41 am

This is the English Language crisis, now.

February 24, 2016 9:11 pm

So the Bering Sea and Nova Scotia will remain great places for fishing fleets?

February 24, 2016 10:15 pm

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Somewhere over the rainbow I do hope that the religious CO2-believers understand that reality beats fiction,
and while it’s allowed for any human to be stupid,
it’s never good to prove it him-/herself…
Where have all the money gone collected by true CO2-threat believers? Has anyone seen an estimated total cost for the believers’ so called experts “studie”
above all have anyone of the belivers understood that this winter the Antarctic is even worse than when the belivers ship had to be resqued from the frozen ice of Antarctic?
Guess at least some of you are aware of a potential true scientists been frozen in with an ice-breaking ship travelling to a true (hopefully) scientstation i Antarctic with supplies and exchanging scholars…..

Reply to  norah4you
February 25, 2016 11:57 am

I’ve been on the ‘Aurora Australis’ – about twenty years ago, now.
One or two design problems, but, overall, a sturdy ship, with good Masters [I met both] Officers and crew.
The reported weather – ‘sustained 80 knot winds’ I saw in one report – may be a bit of a problem in a blizzard, especially to a rather bluff, high-sided vessel.
Think also car carriers and container ships.
I expect all on board will be OK – I certainly hope so.

Reply to  Auto
February 25, 2016 8:59 pm

Good to hear you are all well. I only wish I had been 26 instead of 66. At least I would have loved to see the sea from Australia to Antarctica. I am one of the few who love high sea. Been out in 40 sek/m so not the highest waves but still I loved it. The sea never is the same from one moment to the next and that’s the best there is looking out over water and no land

February 24, 2016 11:52 pm

Does it really differ much from earnestly debating how many angels can dance on the point of a needle??

February 25, 2016 12:23 am

Even an idiot can see straight through this one , I should know because I am one .

February 25, 2016 12:46 am

Fish are fine with temperature change of a small degree as long as the temperature changes slow enough for their metabolism to cope with.
For example 1″ size fish species can tolerate 4 or 5 degrees change in a day, as long as their metabolism can adjust quicker than the temperature changes. Fish have a range they can tolerate and a time within that change can happen that is OK. 2 degrees change in 2 minutes is obviously bad.
A fish would not notice 0.01c let alone migrate because of that change. Even for small 1″ fish, they can tolerate almost 1 degree change per hour for many species.

Reply to  Mark
February 25, 2016 12:46 am

When I say degree I mean c not f

David A
February 25, 2016 12:58 am

“Many studies have shown that critical natural resources, including fish stocks, are moving poleward as the planet warms.”
Really, and the list of those papers? If they exist, I will bet dollars to donuts they do not say that, but instead say many IPC models say this will happen in the future.

David A
Reply to  David A
February 25, 2016 1:22 am

I should have read all the comments, as my concerns were accurate. Thanks to Scotts William Benet’s comment above I see they have redefined the meaning of the word “observation”
“What is an observation?
We defined an observation as one where a biological response was, at a minimum, discussed in relation to EXPECTED impacts of climate change.”
So, with Popper rolling in his grave, an “OBSERVATION” is now a discussion of an “EXPECTED” future event.
Scott goes on to quote the study further…
“We selected all studies that focused on climate change regardless of whether the primary climate variable was temperature, sea ice, pH or “climate oscillation” such as the North Atlantic Oscillation index or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
So major natural drivers of ocean currents and sea ice flux, and natural affects they may have on species movements are now blamed on your SUV. If you are not sufficiently alarmed by this, preliminary indications from their next study indicates that last June they observed humpback whales migrating thousands of miles North due to CAGW. And for those that criticized our definition of an observation, this was not a computer model, we actually saw this!

Chris Lynch
February 25, 2016 1:33 am

If this hypothesis is true can someone explain why cod stocks in the North Sea which have completely recovered in the last 20 years are not migrating northwards to polar regions?

Reply to  Chris Lynch
February 25, 2016 4:17 am

Recovered somewhat not completely, and the North Sea cod stocks are shifting North.
“The past three decades have also seen an apparent shift in the mean distribution of cod within the North Sea, to more northerly and on average deeper waters; this has been reported by studies based on fisheries-independent International Bottom Trawl Surveys (IBTS; see Hedger et al., 2004; Perry et al., 2005; Rindorf & Lewy, 2006; Dulvy et al., 2008). As this shift coincided with the decline in stock size, it is important to understand its possible causes, not only because of predicted links between distribution and abundance (Blanchard et al., 2005) but also because changes in fish distributions may have knock-on effects upon fisheries (Cheung et al., 2013).”

Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 5:07 am

As this shift coincided with the decline in stock size
or it simply be that fishing is heaviest in the shallower southern waters, and there is no shift in fish. the shift is in population due to uneven fishing.

Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2016 8:53 am

Most of the fishermen I know and have fished with go where the fish are. The shift in population is due to both warming and fishing pressure, the analysis shows that the move to the north and deeper water is temperature related and the shift towards the east is related to fishing pressure. Try reading the paper.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Chris Lynch
February 25, 2016 4:27 am

Perhaps if one tracks the market price of cod there may be a clue.

Richard of NZ
February 25, 2016 2:12 am

As a yale is an imaginary creature, perhaps Yale university can be considered an imaginary university that does imaginary studies about imaginary catastrophes?

Reply to  Richard of NZ
February 25, 2016 2:15 am

Well, I imagine so, Richard of NZ.

David A
Reply to  Richard of NZ
February 25, 2016 3:20 am

We suspect that they exist, so therefore we now have observations of them.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Richard of NZ
February 25, 2016 4:25 am

Yale U. was named after Elihu Yale, a real person.

Sandy In Limousin
February 25, 2016 3:55 am

According to Wiki:

The late 1960s and early 1970s were characterised by a sudden and unexplained increase in the abundance of a number of gadoid species (cod, haddock, whiting, etc.), the gadoid outburst. In this period the gadoid species in Scottish waters all produced a series of exceptionally strong year classes which have not been seen repeated in the intervening period. This great abundance, coupled with the price support system that subsidised fishermen when prices fell, contained in the CFP, lead to heavy investment in new boats, equipment and processing capacity in the Scottish whitefish fleet.

The subsequent decline in fish stocks and fishing fleets was blamed on the EU, a convenient scapegoat which got UK politicians and fishermen out of a hole.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
February 25, 2016 4:42 am

Well the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which your quote refers to was an EU program.

February 25, 2016 4:43 am

Yes, we do need to measure the social and psychological impact the alarmists have on the general public. Reminds me of Michael Crichton’s lecture on State of Fear where he began developing the book, but wanted to first go with a big disaster befalls humanity. His example was Chernobyl and apparently only 50 people died from the initial explosion. But the projections of disaster broadcast by the various media caused more psychological damage than the actual disaster. This is what Climate Change will do in our modern day.

Bruce Cobb
February 25, 2016 4:55 am

“…it’s not an efficient reallocation of wealth.”
They would know. If there’s anything watermelons are experts on, it’s the redistribution of wealth.

February 25, 2016 5:04 am

Southport’s fish stocks decline as the climate changes while Northport’s stock increases
nonsense. nature abhors a vacuum. if fish migrate northward new species will expand in the south to take their place. the limiting factor isn’t temperature, it is feed, which is limited by micro nutrients in the ocean. phosphorus for example, which is scarce in the upper ocean.

February 25, 2016 6:45 am

I’m sure Yale is pushing Wind in Maine (along with John Malone -Liberty Media and Plum Creek), being one of the larger land owners.
Bayroot LLC became one of the largest private timberland owners in New England in December 2003 when it bought 129,000 acres in New Hampshire and more than 500,000 acres in Maine from paper company MeadWestvaco. But who is Bayroot?Bayroots incorporation papers in Delaware, as well as corporate filings in Maine and New Hampshire, all refer back to Wagner Forest Management Ltd. of Lyme, which runs forestry operations for Bayroot and half a dozen other limited liability companies.Wagner does not disclose the identity of its investors, who own 2.5 million acres of timberland in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Canada.We never discuss our clients, says president and chief executive Tom Colgan.Jym St. Pierre, a Maine environmental activist, says the public has a right to know whos benefiting from tax dollars spent on conservation easements.Irrespective of what the law says and what they can get away with, theres enormous reason to be transparent and it creates terrible suspicion and distrust if you dont, says St. Pierre, of RESTORE: The North Woods.That was demonstrated several years ago when Maine was negotiating to pay millions of dollars to another Wagner-affiliated company, Yankee Forest LLC, for a conservation easement on 280,000 acres around the west branch of the Penobscot River. Using tax returns, two newspapers revealed that Yankee Forest was Yale Universitys endowment.That caused a controversy on campus, where critics said Yale wasnt living up to the standards it teaches at its respected forestry school.The conservation easement went through, but the land was promptly transferred to another owner.Many North Country residents want to know who Bayroots owners are and consider Yale the prime suspect.Yale did not return messages seeking comment. Its fiscal 2003 tax return, the latest available, does not cover the period when Bayroot was formed.Wagner Chairman Henry Snow, who also heads the New Hampshire chapter of the Nature Conservancy, says it is Wagner that should be and is accountable for its forestry practices. The company adheres to the industrys Sustainable Forestry Initiative and prides itself on working with government agencies and nonprofits to protect sensitive lands.The company also welcomes reporters on its land. On Bayroots land in Millsfield, the logging trails are 60 to 70 feet apart and cutting between them appears to be selective. Critical habitats for deer and pine marten are flagged so contractors wont cut there…
This from 3 days ago…
Landowners, unorganized territory residents at odds over fast-track wind development
Forest products companies that own land in unorganized and deorganized parts of Maine are challenging petitions by residents of the communities who want to opt out of fast-track commercial wind development.
Since Jan.1 more than 20 communities have petitioned the state under a new law that allows residents of unorganized territories to ask for exemptions to the expedited wind permitting area created under Maine’s Wind Energy Act. Several of those petitions were filed Jan. 4, the first Monday after the law went into effect. Those challenging that first round of peititions had a midnight deadline Monday to file challenges.
Communities have until June 30 to submit petitions to the Maine Land Use Planning Commission asking for exemption from the expedited area, and opponents have 45 days following the submission of the petition to challenge it. If no requests are submitted for the review of a petition, it will be approved and the land in question will automatically become excluded from the expedited permitting area.
Those challenging petitions so far include Seattle-based Plum Creek, which owns 400,000 acres in the Moosehead Lake region; timber companies Frontier Forest LLC and Lakeville Shores Inc. and Milton Township private landowner Wayne S. Buck Sr.
Rep. Larry Dunphy, an unenrolled legislator from Embden, who sponsored the law allowing communities to opt out, said he expects a large number of the petitions to be challenged.
“The reason I think these large landowners are challenging this is it’s pretty lucrative for them to lease their land. A lot of these wind developments are on high ridges that probably don’t get harvested a lot anyway. They simply lease that land, they make a ton of money and retain the rights to the land,” Dunphy said. “It’s a pretty lucrative gig for a lot of these large landowners. I can understand from a business standpoint why they are challenging it.”
Still, he said the law is not about stopping wind development, but rather about allowing small communities to have a say in the permitting process.
By Monday afternoon the commission had received letters from three commercial landowners and a private individual challenging the requests of seven communities seeking to be excluded from the expedited wind permitting area, according to Samantha Horn-Olsen, planning manager for the commission.
Challenges require the state to thoroughly review the petitions and allow public comment, possibly through public hearings.
The law that allows the unorganized territories to opt out of the expedited wind permitting area modifies the 2007 Wind Energy Act, which allowed organized municipalities to create ordinances regulating wind power projects, but did not give the same right to unorganized communities.
“So many people had been disenfranchised by (the Wind Energy Act),” Dunphy said. “They wanted their voices heard. That was my whole contention. The citizens wanted to be heard and wanted a right to a public hearing.”
The unorganized territory is that area of Maine that has no local incorporated municipal government, according to Maine Revenue Services. There are more than 400 townships and islands that fall in the unorganized territory and about 9,000 year-round residents.
Forest land owners are “exercising their right to request a complete and thorough review of how such a land use designation change would affect their property, its value and future potential uses,” said Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, in a written statement. The council represents many of the timber harvesting companies that own land in those parts of the state and has worked with some landowners on challenging the petitions.
Those pushing for their community to be left out of fast-track wind development have reasons ranging from their fears for the character of the area to the transparency of the process.
Amy Lane, co-owner of Gray Ghost Camps in Rockwood in Somerset County, has circulated 19 petitions in different unorganized communities around the Moosehead region…
…Among landowners challenging petitions, Plum Creek has asked that the state review petitions in Long Pond Township, Sapling Township and Taunton and Raynham Academy Grant Township. Wind developer SunEdison is currently testing wind conditions for a possible 26-turbine wind farm near Moosehead Lake on Plum Creek land, and both Sapling Township and Taunton and Raynham Academy Grant Township are on the shore of Moosehead Lake.
Anthony Chavez, public affairs manager for Plum Creek, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
Lakeville Shores Inc., a forest products and real estate company, is asking for a review of petitions from Molunkus Township and Trescott Township. Ginger Maxwell, treasurer for Lakeville Shores, could not be reached for comment Monday.
Frontier Forest LLC is challenging a petition in Dennistown Township, and private landowner Buck is challenging a petition in Milton Township.
Note: These folks could use use some help. Thank You.

Reply to  john
February 25, 2016 6:48 am

Live webcam from Moosehead lake:

February 25, 2016 7:58 am

I stopped reading at the word Yale. It’s a foundered ship of fools.

Ben of Houston
February 25, 2016 8:33 am

Is it just me, or do environmentalists seem to think that herds (or schools in this case) have never moved before? It happens all the time. Fishing villages have always risen and fallen as the waters went from plentiful to destitute and then back again. Hunter-Gatherers are nomads because they have to follow the herds. Did they think that the world was in some kind of homeostasis before 80 years ago?
If I didn’t know better, I’d say they must be Young-Earth creationists, because they seem to be completely in denial about the very existence of evolution and adaptation.

February 25, 2016 8:56 am

The importance of the study has nothing to do with the study itself. The importance is in who is doing the study. We have now seen the next path of grant money. The Fish and Forest school wasn’t feeling the love of grant money so they put out a “study” that will guarantee them some future grant love, and that is the rest of the story. What is the next school of studies to try and belly up to the grant trough by putting out some watershed end of the world study thus proving their program needs a massive influx of grant money to avert the certain disaster shown in their paper. Or, come on grant money Prof needs a new pair of shoes.

Svend Ferdinandsen
February 25, 2016 11:14 am

Seems that the cities never invented trade, and never spoke to others.
Europe has no problems buying woodpellets from anywhere on the Earth, and all seems to benefit from that.

February 25, 2016 11:39 am

$1.4 million can buy 28000 tons of Ferrous Sulphate. 100 tons applied to a single NE Pacific eddy in 2012 produced the record breaking 272 million fish harvest of 2013 worth almost $700 million, a dollar return of over 100,000:1 vs the cost of the FeSO4. (The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation spent several million on data collection, hundreds of times more than the cost of the iron itself.)
Of course that 28000 tons could not be usefully employed in a single year, but seeding 10 to 20 eddies near all the major fisheries of the world would have a stunning economic and ecological benefit- think of how well endangered whales, seals, and other sea life would thrive with abundant food.

Walter Sobchak
February 25, 2016 6:04 pm

“if fish quantities increase in a northern community, for instance, it will likely cause a devaluation of that resource locally, particularly if that community isn’t equipped to manage the resource efficiently.”
There is an old Yiddish saying: “if bubbe had beitzim she would have been zaydie”. (If grandma had testicles, she would have been grandpa)

%d bloggers like this: