The World is Losing Fish to Eat as Oceans Warm, Study Finds (nytimes.com) 144
Fish populations are declining as oceans warm, putting a key source of food and income at risk for millions of people around the world, according to research published last week. From a report: The study found that the amount of seafood that humans could sustainably harvest from a wide range of species shrank by 4.1 percent from 1930 to 2010, a casualty of human-caused climate change. "That 4 percent decline sounds small, but it's 1.4 million metric tons of fish from 1930 to 2010," said Chris Free, the lead author of the study, which appears in the journal Science. Scientists have warned that global warming will put pressure on the world's food supplies in coming decades. But the new findings -- which separate the effects of warming waters from other factors, like overfishing -- suggest that climate change is already having a serious impact on seafood.
[...] As the oceans have warmed, some regions have been particularly hard-hit. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean and the Sea of Japan, fish populations declined by as much as 35 percent over the period of the study. "The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity," Dr. Free said. "And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood."
[...] As the oceans have warmed, some regions have been particularly hard-hit. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean and the Sea of Japan, fish populations declined by as much as 35 percent over the period of the study. "The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity," Dr. Free said. "And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood."
The world is also losing fish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
planting flags in space objects
Isn't the Eath a "space object"?
Why should I care? (Score:2, Interesting)
--- Baby Boomers
Re: (Score:1)
-1, Insufficiently alarmist and propagandistic.
Re: (Score:1)
Can you also name a new fish species that has "filled the niche" of extinct species in the last 1000 years? Just one would do
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but maybe you will get reincarnated right into the middle of the mess. Then the joke is on you.
Re: (Score:2)
With their attitude they'll probably be reincarnated as a fish, just for the irony.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Oh well, plenty of humans though (Score:4, Funny)
Don't buy the Soylent Green made from clowns. It tastes funny.
Overfishing had nothing to do with it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, it's all climate change. Decades of documented overfishing and thousands of studies that correctly connect overfishing with declining fish populations are completely meaningless now.
Re:Overfishing had nothing to do with it (Score:5, Informative)
"The added burden of climate change to poorly managed and overfished stocks" would have been a crappy headline so they couldn't even add the first couple of lines of the article to the description.
Fisheries provide food and support livelihoods across the world. They are also under extreme pressure, with many stocks overfished and poorly managed. Climate change will add to the burden fish stocks bear, but such impacts remain largely unknown.
Re:Overfishing had nothing to do with it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is how it works. Fish are genetically inclined to specfic water tempreture ranges. When they change, the fish move or die. In some regions that is worse than others, as the habitat might not be there to move to or they might be trapped in a habitat with to far to move. This combined with existing managed fishing levels lead to over fishing. Then you get stuff like fish size limits, effectively genetically breeding smaller fish or not catching fish that humans wont eat, giving them a huge advantage over
Re: (Score:2)
So any significant change in climate will result in pretty large die offs as the populations adjust, either shift or genetically acclimate. For people reliant on those, well they will suffer and suffer a lot, until the fish populations rebound probably over a decade or century or so.
As a solid example of this: the recent Darling river fish die-off events. [theguardian.com]
findings separate effects of warming frm overfishn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our model knows more than your reality.
Of more interest is whether over fished stocks would be in (as much) trouble if not over fished.
Re: (Score:2)
Our model knows more than your reality.
The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. These folks have applied some rigour to their model. That doesn't somehow make it less accurate.
Of more interest is whether over fished stocks would be in (as much) trouble if not over fished.
Of course not. What's your point?
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares what the specialist say. We are going to stick to information that makes us Feel GOOD!
Just think about that, when at work your boss ignores your plead that they are going to do something stupid, because you know what the outcome is, but they just don't want to hear it, because it makes them look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I smell fish.... (Score:1, Informative)
you have multiple accounts (Score:2)
That IS informative.
Re: (Score:2)
to mod up your own posts? That IS informative.
It was *supposed* to be funny.. But hey, I guess informative works too...
Hmmm... Mod up my own posts by creating another account... Well, I haven't tried that, but if it works for you... Who's got time for that on Slashdot? I'm not seeing where it would be worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is funny.
Modding up your own post is not that easy.
I sometimes posted as AC after modding, and still my modding got removed.
So long.. (Score:3)
Over fishing or magical CO2? (Score:1)
I guess that 97% can hold just about any idea, so long as it supports the narrative.
Are the oceans really warming much at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out there was a major problem [phys.org] with the study it said it was.
Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Yes I do (Score:2)
Oh,you believe in Aquaculture?
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one [google.com].
Not to mention we can switch to eating invasive species like Lionfish that there are plenty of.
Re: (Score:3)
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature. I figure they believe they have found and isolated the effect of water temperature, but I've not seen their study so I have no clue how they managed this. I'd love to see their study, but I've not had the time to try and find it yet.
I'm no climate change zealot (quite the opposite actually) but we need to be accurate here.
Of what value is that claim (Score:3)
Um... I suggest you read the referenced article because they claim to have corrected their number to isolate the effects of over fishing and water temperature.
That on the face of it should raise red flags. It's not like we have highly accurate data on just about anything related to the ocean going back very far at all, and they claim they have separated out the effects of an unknown amount of warming from an equally unknown amount of overfishing? Yeahhhhh I'm going to need them to work over the weekend on
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, don't take me wrong... I think they are making grand claims on the thinnest of data in an attempt to either justify or secure funding though generating interest and news coverage.
All I'm advocating is that we at least properly characterize what they are claiming, because debating claims they didn't make is a logical fallacy (Straw Man), and doesn't help.
Skepticism is easy (Score:2)
Skepticism is easy.
Re: (Score:3)
The Northeast Atlantic has been fished hard all of my life, and before. I expect the fishermen in Gloucester to fight over the last haddock.
Atlantic Salmon have been fished to near-extinction in the wild, on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the contention is that humans have been warming the ocean since the 1930s, they are indeed blaming the wrong thing for the decline in fish populations. Factory fishing, relentless school harassment by Scandinavian and other fleets, pure and simple overfishing is the primary
Re: (Score:1)
It's intriguing: You are a sabotaging dumbass, who pretends not to be a dumbass, who pretends to be a dumbass sometimes when it suits.
https://www.businessinsider.com/oceans-absorb-carbon-emissions-climate-change-2018-10
https://www.businessinsider.com/oceans-warming-faster-than-we-thought-2019-1
Your link is Fake News (Score:2)
Nice try but your last link was already debunked [judithcurry.com].
Re: (Score:2)
She did; I posted a link to it. Anyone is free to dispute what she is saying, only she doesn't hide behind academic paywalls that limit who can write what she says.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out there was a major problem [phys.org] with the study it said it was.
Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Human fishing is well known as the key force in seafood population. Clearly it significantly dwarfs any climate based impact to date, so much I can't see how they could fully account for that impact without the rest being in the statistical noise zone, even though they claim they can do that.
However, if some species are know to flourish with warming while others struggle, shifting to fish more of the flourishing ones and less of the strugglers wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there can be more than one process at work, e.g. fishing and warming. Perhaps read the paper and see what they are really talking about. As far as the abstract states, the authors were working to isolate the effect of warming alone on fish stocks.
Perhaps re-read my comment. I never said only one process was at work. I even mentioned the fact that the study claims they can isolate the impact from warming, which is what I was calling bullshit on.
Re: (Score:1)
The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.
Let's have no more of this "Wild Caught" crapola on seafood labels. If you are concerned about climate and sustainability, put your mouth where your money is and embrace farmed fish.
very complicated ecosystem (Score:2)
Ecosystem is complicated; physics is not (Score:3)
Saying that the top few feet of ocean warming isn't going to dramatically effect the rest of the ocean is silly. Of course its going to effect it.
Not really [21sci-tech.com].
In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9ÂC, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the temperature has an effect on critters & plants living near the top.
I think you missed the part where I was originally saying, and the link I provides also said in great detail, that atmospheric warming has nearly zero effect on water temperature even near the top beyond a very shallow region.
Again, this is not complex, it is simple physics... you are operating on some kind of faith and fear based framework, never healthy.
So maybe it is you need to turn on the brain, and actually read and lear
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you don't pay too much attention to a hot new paper unless you're a scientist working in the field. Most dramatic new findings don't hold up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The top 200M (roughly) of the open ocean is known as the photic zone - where visible light reaches. Of that, 80% of the light is absorbed by the top 10M of the ocean. Most marine species live in this region. By around 50 - 70M, all green light is absorbed and photosynthesis cannot occur.
The thermocline of the
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
""The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity," Dr. Free said. "And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood."
Sounds like a natural correction cycle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you set out to prove climate change, then everything is because of climate change.
Therefore, the obvious flashing neon sign alternate explanation of over-fishing must be ignored, because shut up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you set out to prove climate change, then everything is because of climate change.
Therefore, the obvious flashing neon sign alternate explanation of over-fishing must be ignored, because shut up.
Please be accurate here. The authors of the study claim to have isolated out the effect of water temperature form their data. They claim overfishing is the by far the biggest factor, but that they where able to isolate other factors in their data.
I've not seen the study so it's anybody's guess as to what methods they used to interpret their data, or if their results are sufficiently outside the margin of error to be able to make their claim. I suspect there is more to this story they are not reporting an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, that there are countless numbers of poor people that go out and look for free food in the ocean has no bearing at all on the fish population - nope, it's because of warmer weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, either way, lots of population decrease because the food source dries up will help counteract both problems. So it could be either or some combination of the two and it's still a correction cycle.
Observation vs Concept (Score:1)
So long, and thanks for all the fish (Score:2)
I'm sure we had great stats from 1930... (Score:3, Informative)
This study has a lot of issues. Now I'm not saying we watch what is going on with the ocean and the fish. I am saying there might be some difference in technology from 1930 till now. So there might be some issues with the stat this entire study is based.
Also, just to blame all this on oceans warming is really irresponsible. Gee there couldn't be any other factors, like how much we fish, pollutants, etc.
But, if you put that in your paper, then you will get more funding. Follow the dirty money...
Re: (Score:1)
I think what would be more irresponsible would be to discount the study out of hand without actually knowing anything about the shortcomings you're talking about and whether or not those were taken into account when calculating the error margins in the results.
THAT would just be fucking stupid.
Feeding the Multitude (Score:1)
Plus I'm not a big fish eater (fish sticks maybe once every few years), so for anyone who likes fish you can have mine.
Too Bad... (Score:2, Interesting)
Too bad the oceans and streams are the only source of fish to consume, I just wish there was some way to create fish populations on land...
I wonder, did the "scientists" of the day blame the steam locomotive for the precipitous decline in free-range buffalo, forcing countless millions to starve?
Re: (Score:2)
Fish on land would basically be fresh water fish.
And here you had temperature problems, too.
A trout likes cold water, a Nil perch lies war water, salmons need cold fresh water to breed and eels live in medium warm fresh water but like to breed in the ocean.
There are plenty of interesting "problems2 regarding fish breeding.
Both true and false (Score:3)
The problem is not that there are not enough fish, just that we are losing the top of food chain fish people prefer, while not eating the smaller fish that people don't prefer that live at the bottom of the food chain.
Imagine a Christmas Tree of Fish (or Festal Fish Fellowship):
1 salmon or red snapper
consumes
10 upper mid range fish
consumes
100 mid range fish
consumes
1000 lower mid range fish
consumes
10000 lower range fish.
To solve this problem, you need to stop setting up fish farms for the top 3 levels of fish, which to get 1 L1 and 1 L2 and 1 L3 you need 1110 L4 and 11100 L5, and consume the bottom two levels. This has net positive benefits in that heavy metal and pesticide concentrations also drop. Or you can stop consuming fish and replace them with carbon negative shellfish (not shrimp, sadly, they are net carbon emission increasing) like oysters, clams, and mussels, grown amidst breaker seaweed and breaker seagrass, sucking out carbon from the cycle. The shells of these can then be used to replace many components in concrete, reducing the impact of building. Think of the long surviving concrete from 4000 years ago, which uses this for it's material instead of modern concrete which doesn't survive as long.
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat: It also turns out that a lot of the very bottom level krill and plankton, which we don't eat at all, but that the bottom level fish eat, are also impacted. So, while my point may be relevant to the human behavior (fish eating) it is not relevant to the fish per se. Given the reductions at the very bottom levels below fish that humans can/will consume, there is still a net reduction, but we as humans can modify our behaviors by arresting Chinese executives who persist in eating top of food chain fis
Re: (Score:2)
An additional benefit of setting up farms of shellfish can help clean up the water.
More bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop, enough. it's not about Climate Change, it's about overfishing and using fishing technologies that destroy habitat. We've known about this for decades and yet we still bottom dragging net catches and huge factory ships to overtax the eco system. Species are being wiped out because of their desirability and now sadly, rarity. This has nothing to do with fucking climate hoax and has everything to do with greed and too many people.
It's bizarre watching coastal states (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
like Maine & Florida that are predominately red states and vote for climate change deniers getting hit by it.
How exactly are they being hit by it, in your opinion? Overfishing isn't being caused by climate change.
Alternative headlines... (Score:1)
"Crime is down in NY city as the oceans warm"
"Age expectancy continues to rise as the oceans warm"
"Sales of electric cars are on the increase as the oceans warm"
"Google is now paying women more than men as the oceans warm"
"SpaceX just successfully docked their first Crew Dragon to the ISS as oceans warm"
I think you get the point, unless you really are stupid enough to think that slightly warming oceans are what has been causing overfishing for the past several decades.
Or... (Score:2)
Could another cause be... (Score:2)
"And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood."
Then eat different species (Score:2)
Right away I noticed this report talking about a decline in certain species yet generalized it to a risk for seafood dependent diets so I figured I should look to see which species are winning in the new environment.
According to this Science magazine article, the changing temperatures and increasing acidity of oceans is a boon for Octopus, squid, and cuttlefish.
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
While I believe wee may see increased prices and decreased consumption of certain species, I am certain other to-be