4 ms·
What’s the cost (in fish) between 1.5 and 3 degrees of warming?
- teekert 8y agoThe article is scarce on details but the first part: "Climate change is already affecting oceans, fisheries, and the livelihoods that depend on them. Some local fish stocks are declining, while other fish populations are shifting their distributions, forcing fishers to travel farther to make their catch." Already has me thinking that they are blaming the effects of over-fishing on climate change. A nice way to shift the blame.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoThe crux of the article seems to be explaining the difference between a 1.5C rise and a 3.5C rise, so they are making an argument to decrease global warming to get a better yield each year. The best case scenario for them then would be that we don't do anything about global warming and they can go "well, clearly it's the temperatures fault" instead of over-fishing? They are prepping us for projections that may or may not happen, and they hope they do, otherwise they have nowhere to hide the overfishing? And don't you think after a 3.5C increase we would have bigger fish to fry (pun absolutely intentional)?
- happytoexplain 8y agoAre you saying that the effects of climate change are negligible compared to those of overfishing, or just that the article should talk about both causes?
- SiempreViernes 8y agoUh, you object that the anthropocene magazine concentrates on climate change?
- drak0n1c 8y agoAnthropocene as a term focuses on the human-shaped nature of Earth in general. Overfishing qualifies as a component.
- mistermann 8y agoIt's articles like this (and people using them as "proof") that has made me become extremely skeptical of any "the science shows" claim, on any topic, because when I do the legwork to hunt down "the science" behind claims I read, at least half of the time it's not actually saying what is being subsequently claimed, or lacks certainty, etc. It would be interesting to know how much of broad society's decrease in trust of experts (so they say) is related to this phenomenon. Not much I imagine.
- tony_cannistra 8y agoThat's a good point, and totally worth questioning. If you're interested in a scientific analysis supporting that claim, there's a great research paper [1] (disclaimer: my advisor wrote it) on this subject. [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1958 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1...
- chr1 8y agoMaybe we should approach the question from the other side. - We need more fish than can be sustainably caught. - Most of the ocean is a desert [1] due to the lack of essential elements close to the surface, and only near the shore or in places where current brings nutrients up from the depth there is a significant amount of life. - Ocean surface acts as a giant solar battery because of termocline. This means we can create floating platforms that would pump water from seabed to the surface, creating vast new fisheries and at the same time removing carbon from the atmosphere since this essentially is a controlled form of iron fertilization. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production
- toper-centage 8y agoLeave it to humans to develop convuluted engineering for problems nature already solved but we destroyed, just to avoid solving the real problem: we eat way too much fish and meat.
- chr1 8y agoSo far nature have not solved the problem of most of the earth being desert and all of the live ending in 600mln years [1]. One could argue that having humans (trillions of them) is natures way of solving these problems, and having less people that eat less fish doesn't help with any of these. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
- pbreit 8y agoI can never tell if studies like this take into account much evolution and adaptation? They always seem to assume that current trendlines will continue.
- howard941 8y agoI failed to submit the actual study. It's here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau3855.full http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau3855.full
- tony_cannistra 8y agoFinally, my PhD research is relevant. This particular work doesn't, but other work in the land of organismal responses to climate change does. There's a good review of this [0] (disclaimer: written by my advisor). Here's [1] another one by two of the greats in the field (Ray Huey/Kearney) [0]: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160516 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10... [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2012.0005 https://sci-hub.se/https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/fu...
- eanzenberg 8y agoSo, does this show that fisheries will be more productive with 1.5C or 3.5C warming vs 0C? A difference of 6.5% biomass between 1.5C and 3.5C doesn't warrant trillions of spending, IMO. This along with 1-4ft increase in sealevel[1] over 100 years begs the question, so what? [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
- benj111 8y agoPeople living near the coast (hint most of the global population) would probably disagree with you.
- eanzenberg 8y agoWhy? 1-4ft sealevel increase is nothing
- benj111 8y agoNot if your home is 3ft above sea level.
- eanzenberg 8y agoImpossible due to tides
- benj111 8y agoHow is it impossible, if the tidal range is less than 3 ft, your house could be less that 3 foot above sea level and not get wet.
- eanzenberg 8y agoWhere is tide less than 3 ft?
- 8y ago