9 ms·

The World Is Losing Fish to Eat as Oceans Warm, Study Finds

48 points by iron0013 8y ago

cwkoss 8y ago
How do they control for overfishing? It is certainly concerning that fish population is in decline, but it doesn't seem clear that water temperature is the only or primary cause.
- monetus 8y ago
  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc, they make a projection based on how many are caught each year.
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    In fact based on how many are landed and registered at ports. that is a different question. Pirate fishing is unregistered. I would expect a correction factor for sea cages, that... maybe could have increased in the same period of time? just guessing. I dunno. There are probably also entire areas closed to fishermen since 2011, We could expect a decrease on fishes previously landed from this areas.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  > The team compared that data to records that showed how ocean temperatures had changed over time, broken down by the various regions. These regional analyses were important, because some parts of the ocean have warmed faster than others. > “We then connected those to which populations responded positively, negatively, and which didn’t respond at all,” Dr. Pinsky said. > The data revealed some other trends. Fish populations in the colder parts of their ranges tended to fare better than those located in warmer areas — for those fish, the extra heat was too much. This was especially troubling to the researchers, because the data they used was less detailed in the tropics. Fish losses in those regions may have been higher than in the regions the study focused on, Dr. Pinsky said. > Warm areas fared even worse when they were overfished. The researchers suggested that overfishing made fish even more vulnerable to temperature changes by hurting their ability to reproduce and damaging the ecosystem.
ilovecaching 8y ago
I'm very worried about the bees. My theory is that the bees are going to go extinct, and that will be the butterfly that wipes us out. At the very least it seems highly probably we'll be in a state of total anarchy in a new dark age within the next fifty years thanks in part to unethical uses of technology.
- wrong_variable 8y ago
  Relax, bees were already wiped out in some regions with heavy pollution in China, and what happened was humans were made to do the work of the bees - which it turned out was cheaper than depending on bees ! In case we do lose a large part of the ecosystems humans can still survive on potatoes - 2 billion people already survive on rice / root plant , so the only thing lost would be luxury items enjoyed by the top 40% of the human population. Maybe it will push them to worry about more serious stuff like sea level rise ? There is always liquefied cockroaches.
  - Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
    and liquefied people
  - honkycat 8y ago
    There was this great quote from writer Kara Brown that goes: "If I Need a Gas Mask, I’d Rather Be Dead" I honestly agree with that. If all I have left to eat is liquid cockroaches, I'd rather be dead.
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      I would gladly remain alive for both of you. Would not be easy but somebody must make a sacrify and do the job. As long as is organic and with six legs can be distilled.
    - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
      I think that is just part of the cycle. Life will get difficult, many will die, less people would mean less pollution, and then the earth can clean itself until things are nice enough for people to multiply and ruin things again.
honkycat 8y ago
These stories get worse and worse. And nobody ever does anything to fix it. Yet another stressor for us oft-maligned millennials: We are supposed to be hitting the "grown-up" mile markers, and we are supposed to be having children. But we are smacked in the face with a doomsday scenario, with no signs of large portions of the US population taking it seriously. "How can we afford a green new deal?" How can we afford to not at least TRY to reverse course? Why aren't millennials having kids? Look at the devastation around you. Will they be born into a world careening towards mass-famine and war? What will be left of the earth in the coming years? What do they stand to inherit? With cloning and gene editing and CRISPR babies, are my genes even valuable? Why not just clone astronauts? And is it better for the whole earth if I choose to not have children? Personally, my partner and I have decided it is better if we do not have biological children. I come from a family that tends to adopt children instead of having them, so that is no huge worry to me. Am I afraid of missing out on an amazing, transformative human experience? Yeah. But if you look at the map of the possible paths human civilization can take, "here be dragons."
- yostrovs 8y ago
  Are you comparing this time to some other, better one? If so, which? Just curious when prospects were better for children overall.
- KorematsuFred 8y ago
  > But if you look at the map of the possible paths human civilization can take, "here be dragons." Take a chill pill. Entire US society was made to think just like you 30 years ago with utter garbage theories of population explosion and how our children will strive. Ignore these idiotic "expert predictions", these people are no different from the "experts" who made USA attack Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
- sarah8888 8y ago
  The solution is to restrict immigration to other wealthy countries. We need fewer people in the world, and one way to achieve that is simply to greatly limit who can come into the first world. That means more resources for those already there, and higher wages. Besides, the potential population to come out of the 3rd world is potentially unlimited. We need to restrict immigration to avoid population replacement.
FrozenVoid 8y ago
The problem isn't just "water changing a few degrees", its oxygen% dropping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation

48 points by iron0013 8y ago

How do they control for overfishing? It is certainly concerning that fish population is in decline, but it doesn't seem clear that water temperature is the only or primary cause.

monetus 8y ago
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc, they make a projection based on how many are caught each year.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  In fact based on how many are landed and registered at ports. that is a different question. Pirate fishing is unregistered. I would expect a correction factor for sea cages, that... maybe could have increased in the same period of time? just guessing. I dunno. There are probably also entire areas closed to fishermen since 2011, We could expect a decrease on fishes previously landed from this areas.
JamesBarney 8y ago
> The team compared that data to records that showed how ocean temperatures had changed over time, broken down by the various regions. These regional analyses were important, because some parts of the ocean have warmed faster than others. > “We then connected those to which populations responded positively, negatively, and which didn’t respond at all,” Dr. Pinsky said. > The data revealed some other trends. Fish populations in the colder parts of their ranges tended to fare better than those located in warmer areas — for those fish, the extra heat was too much. This was especially troubling to the researchers, because the data they used was less detailed in the tropics. Fish losses in those regions may have been higher than in the regions the study focused on, Dr. Pinsky said. > Warm areas fared even worse when they were overfished. The researchers suggested that overfishing made fish even more vulnerable to temperature changes by hurting their ability to reproduce and damaging the ecosystem.

ilovecaching 8y ago

I'm very worried about the bees. My theory is that the bees are going to go extinct, and that will be the butterfly that wipes us out. At the very least it seems highly probably we'll be in a state of total anarchy in a new dark age within the next fifty years thanks in part to unethical uses of technology.

wrong_variable 8y ago
Relax, bees were already wiped out in some regions with heavy pollution in China, and what happened was humans were made to do the work of the bees - which it turned out was cheaper than depending on bees ! In case we do lose a large part of the ecosystems humans can still survive on potatoes - 2 billion people already survive on rice / root plant , so the only thing lost would be luxury items enjoyed by the top 40% of the human population. Maybe it will push them to worry about more serious stuff like sea level rise ? There is always liquefied cockroaches.
- Iwan-Zotow 8y ago
  and liquefied people
- honkycat 8y ago
  There was this great quote from writer Kara Brown that goes: "If I Need a Gas Mask, I’d Rather Be Dead" I honestly agree with that. If all I have left to eat is liquid cockroaches, I'd rather be dead.
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    I would gladly remain alive for both of you. Would not be easy but somebody must make a sacrify and do the job. As long as is organic and with six legs can be distilled.
  - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
    I think that is just part of the cycle. Life will get difficult, many will die, less people would mean less pollution, and then the earth can clean itself until things are nice enough for people to multiply and ruin things again.

honkycat 8y ago

These stories get worse and worse. And nobody ever does anything to fix it. Yet another stressor for us oft-maligned millennials: We are supposed to be hitting the "grown-up" mile markers, and we are supposed to be having children. But we are smacked in the face with a doomsday scenario, with no signs of large portions of the US population taking it seriously. "How can we afford a green new deal?" How can we afford to not at least TRY to reverse course? Why aren't millennials having kids? Look at the devastation around you. Will they be born into a world careening towards mass-famine and war? What will be left of the earth in the coming years? What do they stand to inherit? With cloning and gene editing and CRISPR babies, are my genes even valuable? Why not just clone astronauts? And is it better for the whole earth if I choose to not have children? Personally, my partner and I have decided it is better if we do not have biological children. I come from a family that tends to adopt children instead of having them, so that is no huge worry to me. Am I afraid of missing out on an amazing, transformative human experience? Yeah. But if you look at the map of the possible paths human civilization can take, "here be dragons."

yostrovs 8y ago
Are you comparing this time to some other, better one? If so, which? Just curious when prospects were better for children overall.
KorematsuFred 8y ago
> But if you look at the map of the possible paths human civilization can take, "here be dragons." Take a chill pill. Entire US society was made to think just like you 30 years ago with utter garbage theories of population explosion and how our children will strive. Ignore these idiotic "expert predictions", these people are no different from the "experts" who made USA attack Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
sarah8888 8y ago
The solution is to restrict immigration to other wealthy countries. We need fewer people in the world, and one way to achieve that is simply to greatly limit who can come into the first world. That means more resources for those already there, and higher wages. Besides, the potential population to come out of the 3rd world is potentially unlimited. We need to restrict immigration to avoid population replacement.

FrozenVoid 8y ago

The problem isn't just "water changing a few degrees", its oxygen% dropping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation