
What’s the cost (in fish) between 1.5 and 3 degrees of warming? - howard941
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/03/cost-in-fish-between-degrees-warming/
======
chr1
Maybe 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
Leave 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
So 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)

------
teekert
The 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.

~~~
SiempreViernes
Uh, you object that the _anthropocene_ magazine concentrates on climate
change?

~~~
drak0n1c
Anthropocene as a term focuses on the human-shaped nature of Earth in general.
Overfishing qualifies as a component.

------
pbreit
I can never tell if studies like this take into account much evolution and
adaptation? They always seem to assume that current trendlines will continue.

~~~
tony_cannistra
Finally, 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...](https://sci-
hub.se/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-
ecolsys-110411-160516)

[1]: [https://sci-
hub.se/https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/fu...](https://sci-
hub.se/https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2012.0005)

------
eanzenberg
So, 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/)

~~~
14
We want a zero degree increase things are good as they have been for thousands
of years. Now if we go up to 1.5C we lose a lot of fish. We will have 6.5%
more fish then if we go to 3C increase so the "so what" is we stand to lose
millions of peoples jobs, livelihoods, and the only way they feed their
families. It means by doing nothing we are potentially sentencing millions of
people to their demise. I just don't get how anyone can sit here and say "so
what". And I truly do think this is a rich person problem too because you
watch what happens when millions of people are pushed from their homes in a
short period of time it will be pandemonium. What are we going to do when
essentially an entire nation is pushed from their homes? What country is going
to accept them or do we just let them die? So for me there is a huge amount at
risk if their estimates in this study are true. I have kids that I want to
leave a future earth to.

~~~
ZeroFries
Here's the thing though: if we actively do something to stop carbon
production, we will also be losing economic wellbeing. Developing nations will
be hit harder by this cutback, too. The question is is the trade-off worth it,
relative to other things we could be putting our time and attention to.
According to this think tank (1), it doesn't pay out so well, compared to
other goals.

1: [https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-
outcomes](https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-outcomes)

