By Vijay Jayaraj
The oceans are still very much a mystery to humankind, with a vast majority of it yet to be explored. Early in my career, I wanted to make an in-depth study of how climate affected marine life. After all, many media reports claimed that “oceans will become empty by 2048.”
So, as a graduate research assistant, I explored the adaptability of marine fish and invertebrates to fluctuations in ocean temperatures. I found that both are highly adaptable to changes in the water around them. That is the way they are made.
Now, evidence emerging from scientific studies shows that marine life may be benefiting from the relative warmth of modern temperatures.
Contrary to the hyperbole of climate reporters, there has been no alarming increase in global sea-surface temperatures. Even if temperatures increase substantially, fish are free to migrate to cooler waters and do, as documented by scientific studies.
Fish also have natural adaptive mechanisms. Since their initial emergence in Earth’s waters, fish have developed genetically in ways that allow them not only to survive but to thrive in a variety of environments. In addition to the generational genetic adaptability, fish also display short-term phenotypic plasticity which allows them to adapt to temperatures and other physical factors. When combined, these mechanisms act as significant protection against the ill-effects of the physical environment.
Despite this, it is not uncommon to see news of fisheries crashing under the weight of a climate crisis. However, real-world data contradict such negative reports, indicating instead that global fish catches will improve in the coming decades.
A 2016 scientific study “assembled the largest-of-its-kind database and coupled it to state-of-the-art bioeconomic models for more than 4,500 fisheries around the world.” The study found that global fisheries will profit from an increase in marine species. The degree of this commercial success will depend on a range of policy measures, including ones that enable increased catches for individuals and communities.
In 2020, there was a record 214 million tonnes of production from both wild catches and aquaculture. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 report says that this production is expected to grow 14 percent by 2030. Fish are expected to become more affordable and accessible, with prices decreasing between 2024-2029, according to two international bodies: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that published the data in Agricultural Outlook.
As of 2017, around 65% of fish stocks were biologically sustainable. An index of population health is maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the point at which the stock can sustain itself without limits on fishing. The MSY calculation involves collaborative information gathering by marine biologists and fishers.
The 2022 report states that the number of catches from biologically sustainable stocks has been on the rise! This signals that catches can be increased without depleting the stock to levels that neither the species nor continued fishing is at risk. While some concerns remain for a few species, studies show that in regions where we have high-quality population data, the majority of fish stocks are either stable or improving.
In short, any threat to future catches is not “empty” seas but rather the effect of activities such as illegal fishing and overfishing. Fish as an important protein source is likely to remain available in large quantities. Reality contradicts the fallacious climate crisis that dominates popular media and politics.
This commentary was first published in American Thinker on February 10, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
Lanternfish have the health of the global oceans covered. Most don’t even know about them.
From the looks of the teeth some sport, not many would like to know them better.
Did a quick bit of research. The base of the ocean food chain is phytoplankton. Abundance is detectable by satellite via strength of chlorophyll sunlight absorption. (Green). Phytoplankton require 3 things: CO2, sunlight, and nutrients. As Dissolved ocean CO2 has increased (slightly lowering pH, not the dreaded ocean acidification), phytoplankton abundance has not—because nutrient limits have not basically changed except locally (eg mouth of Mississippi from ag runoff).
Models (from NASA and in some recent alarmist Nature papers) predict phytoplankton abundance will decline with global warming from increased ocean stratification (mixed layer warmer, so lower upwelling nutrients from below the euphotic zone where they are ‘released’ by decay. Of course no evidence of that so far.
And, more modeled extreme weather would logically decrease stratification, increase surface nutrients, and increase phytoplankton abundance.
Trying to have it both ways at once doesn’t usually work out well, as here.
I recall reports a few years back that said phytoplankton had increased by about a factor of 10 over the previous two decades, exactly the opposite of model expectations. Your accounting above seems to deny any noticeable increases, or am I reading it incorrectly?
Also, while ocean acidification is still a favorite item on some menus, my casual reading leads to the conclusion that there has been zero measurable ocean pH change aside from a very few, not especially large regions. Of course there are significant seasonal changes in quite a few places but they net out to zero over time. What supports “(slightly lowering pH, not the dreaded ocean acidification)” the slightly lowering statement?
The specific slightly lower ocean pH measurements (pH 8.2>8.1) are from Station Aloha north of Hawaii, a particularly barren ocean parcel. For much more detail on how deceptive this ‘official NOAA estimate’ is concerning the impact of biology on ocean pH, see my essay ‘Shell Games’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Simple example from the essay. pH of Florida Bay ranges from 4.8 on mangrove fringe of Everglades in winter to 9.6 near Key West in late summer—a distance of 60 miles on average. Yet all the sea life of Florida Bay thrives.
Interesting to compare bio-data pH from Flinders Reef to the Aloha station. short term data.
A compendium of all ocean surface reading since around 1910 show basically no trend.. maybe a slight increase in pH.
You mean CO2 isn’t making the oceans more acid! Will wonders never cease.
There is certainly no evidence that it is. In fact, measurements show that it isn’t…
Just like there is no evidence that human CO2 is causing atmospheric warming.,… In fact, measurements show that it isn’t…
Your recalled the report correctly. Old post by me. North Atlantic diatoms only via seine netting. But diatoms are not all phytoplankton, and North Atlantic is not all oceans. I did general research before posting here today.
I believe that chlorophyll reflects green (fluoresces red) and absorbs red and blue.
If you try to grow green plants under green light, they will die.
Separate much more general observation about applying simple common sense to alarmist projections.
Here ‘ocean fisheries will be adversely affected’. No, because fish can swim.
Elsewhere, Pacific islands will drown from SLRA. No, they have added landmass for reasons Darwin first explained in 1827.
Elsewhere, starvation will rise from drought, flood, whatever. No, FAO says staple food crop production is steadily rising thanks to CO2 greening.
Elsewhere, halt meat and dairy because of methane GHG. No, in the real world of about 2% average specific humidity methane has NO GHE at all—swamped by water vapor. Basic physics.
Elsewhere, UN says oceans boiling. No, my Maine lobsters are still bought live and uncooked.
This article talks about sustainable or increasing fish populations, even under increased fishing. Until relatively recently, fishing of most of the oceans was very light to non-existent. Is there any information of what was happening then? Did fish populations grow and crash in cycles as many “natural” land based species as they eventually consumed available food and as predator populations increased by some lag behind prey populations?
The Chinese are making a decided effort to change that. Oil tanker sized factory ships regularly sit off the Australian east coast hoovering up all that they can.
The base of the ocean food chain is plankton, particularly phytoplankton. They are growing hugely courtesy of a special nutrient (you guessed it from the suffix “phyto”). The nutrient is carbon dioxide! They grow by photosynthesis exactly like terrestrial plants of the Great Greening of the earth and ever expansion of bumper harvests. These micro creatures consume billions of tonnes of CO2.
NOAA undertook a 30 year experiment to determine how much CO2 emitted by human industrial activity and fossil fuel burning was taken up by the oceans and, remarkably, the answer was a steady 31% regardless of emission increases. This is roughly similar to the percentage taken up by expanding plant land-based plants. Also, the “lungs” of the earth are not jungles. Plankton generate 70% of earth’s oxygen! A strong proof of this is that climateers avoid mention of the Greening to a degree, but never talk about plankton.
Phytoplanton is also a very important coral food.
Being the base of the ocean food chain, it is no stretch to argue that expanding phytoplankton are responsible for the irrepressible health of fat polar bears, too.
“Fat” is politically incorrect. I believe the correct term is “weight challenged.”
Or weight advantaged if it comes down to a dispute over a tasty seal
I also have been reading studies regarding phytoplankton populations which have revealed that phytoplankton have thrived over a wide range of ocean pH levels and can adapt much more rapidly than other organisms since many reproduce daily. Additionally, with a reduction in sea ice extent the other requirement for photosynthesis, sunlight, can work its magic. Some areas of the northern waters have seen massive increases in numerous phytoplankton species. While not uniform due many extraneous factors, many whale populations appear to be showing impressive increases as well.
Even in the oceans, warmer is better. Who knew?
I would like to suggest an experiment to Masters and, maybe, even Ph.D. Candidates. A number of new nuclear plants are being built around the world(e.g., Karachi, Pakistan and Dubai,UAE). These plants are located on the coast and use ocean water for cooling. The water heats the ocean water as it is recycled. I learned 50 years ago that the warmer water improved fish stocks. This would be a great opportunity to study whether that theory is correct.
Perry Nuclear power plant in Ohio discharges warm water into Lake Erie, I can verify that the fishing is great around the outlets. Perch, Walleye, smallmouth bass. Tasty yellow perch especially thrive there. Every sport fisherman in the state knows this well.
Sometime ago I read two articles from the early 1950s, where the previous warm period was still producing changes around the world. One was about the Pacific and one about the Atlantic. Both were observations of many species showing up in large numbers far north of where they had previously been found. In the Atlantic, for instance, the claim was that many species, from unicellular to large fish, once though native to the latitude of the Mediterranean Sea were now abundant around Scandinavia.
I’ve wondered if the “escaping heated waters” theory should have been “expanding joyously into waters previously too cold”.