I posted a graph from L.B. Klyashtorin via Walter Starck on May 4, 2008, with comment from Walter that “I have never seen a more succint and telling argument to refute carbon dioxide government climate change”.
The graph though was not of the highest quality, and so Louis Hissink has had it redrawn:
The original post is here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003005.html
Thanks Louis for the better quality graph.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Just a graph of catch effort technology?
Dear “Alarmist Creep par excellence” do you have a photo of yourself on your bedroom wall to kiss on waking? Must admit though with that title you probably are a creep.
creep; of more relevance is the point of whether catch technology has caused declines in the fishing stock to occur at exactly the same time as the climate indices oscillate; the LOD, NPI, ALPI and PDO are all trending up but only californian sardines are also trending up. This tends to go against the very good historical match.
Yes actually. True DHMO I am pretty creepy. You must admit. Anything to fuel your prejudices.
Cohenite – give LOD the boot on fit. The rest are probably cross correlated – i.e sort of measuring somewhat of the same.
But correlation ain’t cause and effect. Perhaps catch effort improves initially as they get good at locating and catching fish. Population declines. Catch improves again as technology improves – population now declining and long before the PDO. Just musing. Needs teasing apart.
Does it explain the Bluefin Tuna or Newfoundland Cod population collapses.
But as per the lead – what’s it have to do with AGW.
And there are broader things going on….
Nature 423, 280-283 (15 May 2003)
Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities
Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm
1. Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1
Serious concerns have been raised about the ecological effects of industrialized fishing1, 2, 3, spurring a United Nations resolution on restoring fisheries and marine ecosystems to healthy levels4. However, a prerequisite for restoration is a general understanding of the composition and abundance of unexploited fish communities, relative to contemporary ones. We constructed trajectories of community biomass and composition of large predatory fishes in four continental shelf and nine oceanic systems, using all available data from the beginning of exploitation. Industrialized fisheries typically reduced community biomass by 80% within 15 years of exploitation. Compensatory increases in fast-growing species were observed, but often reversed within a decade. Using a meta-analytic approach, we estimate that large predatory fish biomass today is only about 10% of pre-industrial levels. We conclude that declines of large predators in coastal regions5 have extended throughout the global ocean, with potentially serious consequences for ecosystems5, 6, 7. Our analysis suggests that management based on recent data alone may be misleading, and provides minimum estimates for unexploited communities, which could serve as the ‘missing baseline’8 needed for future restoration efforts.
But this below may have to do with AGW
Oxygen Depletion Zones In Tropical Oceans Expanding, Maybe Due To Global Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080501143406.htm
Rubbish Alarmis Creep… Fisheries on the main have only declined due to Bureaucracy not declining fish stocks.
Don’t know about AGW, but I am certain about the reason for the decline of blue fin tuna numbers.
In 1974 I was employed on a tune boat in Port Lincoln, all boats used rods and hooks, ALL!
By 1975 there were two factory ships with nets etc.
When we came in with 15 tons of tuna it was a good wage for all on board.
When the factory ships came into port with a 100 tons they complained that they make no money!
The rest is history!
Well gee J Hansford – can we quote you on you expansive research and opinion.
creep; phytoplankton absorb CO2; in a -ve PDO, La Ninas dominate and there is a steeper ocean thermocline and upwelling of cold nutritious water; this facilitates more absorbtion of CO2 into the ocean; this combination provides greater fish-food and therefore greater stock; the correlation with PDO would seem to have a causal significance.
So where are the fish and where are the upwellings.
“So where are the fish and where are the upwellings” In the sea creep, in the sea. Sheesh.
So the upwelling is off Peru and the fishies are in the north-east Pacific? Was just asking dud.
Alarmist Creep,
You surprise me. Add CO2 to the graph, then tell us which trends correlate with temperature.
“There are none so blind….”
Walter is this your level of science.
You guys are so now immersed in spin you can’t even see it.
What – PDO “may” have an effect of SOME fish stocks. Wow ! what a breakthrough. We never knew that … I wonder how they found the PDO in the first place. Maybe something about fish.
So how did you get from there to : “”I have never seen a more succint and telling argument to refute carbon dioxide government climate change”.
WG1 report has lots on decadal influences. Do you think you invented the issue.
And really it’s hardly an exhaustive review if you DID want to look for AGW effects is it?
Like the recent Nature paper of last week.
Or a rapidly warming Tasman Sea
The deep-sea fish hoki, also known as blue hake or blue grenadier, is one of New Zealand’s biggest fish exports. Hoki fishing began in the Tasman Sea, but has expanded to include Cook Strait, the Chatham Rise and subantarctic waters. In the decade to 2002 the annual quota for the catch was 200,000 tonnes. In 2004 the Tasman Sea stock was estimated to be down to about 13% of the biomass before fishing developed in 1972, with a warming trend in the Tasman likely to be a contributing factor. The quota was reduced to 180,000, then to 100,000 tonnes in 2004.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/SeaLife/DeepSeaCreatures/5/ENZ-Resources/Standard/1/en
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22040318-30417,00.html?from=public_rss
Temperature rises along Australia’s coastline are already occurring with south-east Australia
among the most affected region in the world. Temperature along Tasmania’s east coast has
already increased by almost 2ºC due to climate change. The CSIRO has already predicted
dramatic changes in the range of species and the disruption of reproductive cycles for the fish of
south-east Australia as the eastern Australian current warms and moves further south. The
United Nations climate panel stated that the Tasman Sea Is suffering the greatest ocean warming
in the southern hemisphere. The most affected marine groups are predicted to include inshore
demersal fish.
crepp; that csiro prediction is completely contradicted by ARGO, which along with AQUA, is rapidly becoming an embarrassment for AGW and nasa. Here’s another Nature paper which has a different take on AGW and oceanic response:
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/222800
Maybe the fish are responding to bigger things than overfishing, which are manifested in IPO/PDO’s. Some odd things have happened;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml
errr – it’s not a prediction.
“The CSIRO has already predicted”
is not a prediction.
Right…………..
Yea too right !
Pages 26 & 27
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/docs/Ayers_MM_Lecture_feb07.pdf
Maria island long-term ocean temperature observations show warming in the region of some 1.6 ºC in 50 years, three times as large as the global average.
AC
I am not going through the powerpoint presentation, just pinpoint the relevant bit please.
Like : http://www.cmar.csiro.au/docs/Ayers_MM_Lecture_feb07.pdf pp xxx ?
creep; that csiro report is unbelievable; and hey, isn’t ARGO updates hard to get. The oceans are not warming within reasonable error bars;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1100
except at the Arctic; and even nasa thinks that is natural;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
They must have thrown a toaster into the water around Tassie.
Excellent post, and timely.
No you’re unbelieveable. How about not being a total nong and realise that this finding has been reported for some time. Hand waving with your generalist global links is utterly irrelevant to the Tasman issue. I’m making a specific comment. Does Tasman now = global.
So we’ve now had (1) it’s a prediction (2) it ain’t happening. Wrong.
Louis is “Pages 26 & 27” as quoted above beyond your reading level. It called RTFM mate !
creep; I can’t help it, I come from a long line of nongs; I must say, I find a certain degree of inconsistency in your posting; you have accused me of fly-specking when I referred to climate events in Newcastle, and now you are doing the same at Tassie , which has less people than Newcastle and is smaller than the Hunter Valley; variations within the climate, atmospherically and in the ocean, are the norm; the point about the Tassie report is that it says the local temp is 1.6 more than the general ocean warming; the point I am making is that there is no general ocean warming;
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/
Given that, the Tassie result is unbelievable in the sense that either the result is flawed or it is due to very localised events; like a big toaster.
Gary; thanks; sometimes I think creep can’t see the woods for the trees.
Hmm, Creep was right for once – I missed the page reference. Humble apolgies creep – but it was late at night.