Your site is a true finding in helping me keep up to date on this issue, many thank yous for it.

I read this article in NASA frontpage:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html

There's a common rule of thumb that says "more CO2 means more plant productivity" but this article says that warmer ocean waters may mean less phytoplancton productivity meaning less CO2 uptake (according to the article Phytoplancton take about as much CO2 from the atmosphere as land vegetation) meaning more warming. (If I go on it starts to sound like a snowball effect, doesn't it?)

Best regards,

As usual, it looks as though a computer model takes precedence over real world data. Remember 1998, the El Nino year, unprecedented warming, the warmest year in earth history (ok, I've exaggerated the last claim a little)? Let's see what the real world data, circa 2000, has to say about phytoplankton uptake, etc.

"A common theme has been the 'decimation' of fisheries due to purported warming. Well, in August, with the reported warming of the North Atlantic, came Large increase in Scottish salmon numbers reported while New cool-water cycle in Pacific sends marine populations soaring. These harvestable (adult) fish in the Pacific north-east didn't suddenly materialize out of cool water so, where did they come from? Could it be that breeding success and survival was enhanced by warmer conditions? No one would deny the El Ni�o-induced warming of the central Pacific 1997-98 and yet fisheries boomed in the Pacific north-east and now:

"Poor world prices for tuna force some fishing fleets back to harbour" - "Poor world prices for tuna have forced some pacific island fishing fleets back to harbour. Sean Dorney reports that the problem is world oversupply: The Pacific newsagency, PacNews, is carrying a report out of American Samoa saying the oil dock at Utulei and the docks at both fishing canneries in Pago Pago are crowded with fishing boats which have been tied up for several weeks. It says it's a depressing period for Samoan fishermen with locally based purse seiner and long liner crews taking unscheduled leave without pay. The news service quotes the Star Kist Manager in American Samoa, Phil Thirkell, as saying tuna prices have fallen to an all-time low with the price of skipjack taking the biggest drop. It's a similar scene elsewhere in the Pacific. The Forum Fisheries Agency says prices have been falling since last year due to big catches in all fisheries especially in the Eastern Pacific. In its latest annual report the Agency says prices are likely to remain low while markets are oversupplied." (Radio Australia)

Following the warmer conditions there is an oversupply of fish. Could the two events be related? Of course, see El Ni�o's Dramatic Impact on Ocean Biology* for some idea on the enormous surge in phytoplankton that took place with the El Ni�o rebound - that's a lot of fish food. Incidentally, that bloom consumed an extraordinary amount of carbon and the majority of that bloom (that which didn't end up as part of the food chain at least) is now on the bottom of the Pacific - sequestered, in other words.

It is entirely possible that warmer conditions enhance fish breeding success, just as it seems likely that infusions of nutrient-rich cold currents enhance fish growth. It is simply not true to say that warm = bad. Nor is it true that there is any advantage for life on Earth in limiting the availability of the essential trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2)."

This is from JunkScience.com. You can say what you will about the source, but I'll take empirical data any day over computer models.

Paul:

You can pick and choose whatever data you want to back your own bias view point, whatever it is. This is what JunkScience.com excels at. One must look at the totallity of the subject to come up with an accurate assesment. In light of this truth the totality of data speaks loud and clear: Humanity is killing our planet.

For instance: You site one fishery that for one season is showing higher productivity than in a few previous years. But when one goes back even further one finds that Salmon populations are a fraction of what they once were and continue to show declines world wide.

There are many reasons why this fishery during this one season might be seeing an up tick in catch rates which have nothing what so ever to do with the over all health of the population. Most everything is relative to what is, what was and what is to come and Salmon fisheries are no different. You must look at long term trends, not just a few years of data that fit your own political bias.

"Most everything is relative to...what is to come"

Kevbo, statement proves that you're an idiot. Paul is very capable of defending himself, but you seem to think everyone who has as opinion that isn't in agreement with global warming has a political bias. You need to get a life.

What makes you think salmon populations are effected by climate anyway? Have you ever thought that there might be other forces such as disease or predation? Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot that from your perspective if its bad it must be human caused, right? Have you considered that it might be harvesting by commercial fisherman? (Does that fit your narrow politically-oriented mind a little better? Evil people want to eat fish!) Maybe La Nina reduced the type of forage that the fish eat and so their population decreased in response to the lower amount of food?

If we had the technical capability of predicting long term trends we'd know what the weather will be for next weekend. We don't have that technology for the weather, we don't have it for the climate, we don't have it for animal populations, we don't have it for forest management, and we don't have it for earthquakes.

Your faith in our all-knowing science is misplaced. We don't know as much as you have been led to believe. You need a serious reality check.

WoodNfish,

Name calling...Hmmm... didn't know I was dealing with such a child. The right wing does a lot of that too when they are backed into a corner from which they cannot escape with facts or common sense.

I never said Salmon populations are affected solely by climate change, did I? You assume.

You accuse me of blaming people solely for Salmon decline and then go on to name at least one other human related reason they might be in decline. How about Dams? How about cattle grazing? How about logging? How about farm chemicals? How about home use of petro-chemicals? Want me to continue?

You are in denial at how destructive and greedy your species is. Of course the Salmon are in decline because of humans...do you have even an ounce of common sense? You resort to name calling becasue its all you have. The over whelming evidence is in that the Earth is being killed by just one species... YOURS! The Earth is round partner, get off the obsession that you can prove it's flat.

kevbo:

Sorry for the delay, work got in the way.

Anyway, how many examples do I have to give you?

Talk about cherry-picking the data, all I've ever seen out of the AGW group is the classic "Draw your line, then, and only then, plot your data." For instance, 9 times out of 10, when you hear an anecdotal tail of how AGW is affecting some poor soul's life; it's how much warmer it has been since the 60's or 70's. A 30 year time span. They never relate how warm it was back in the 30's and 40's. Why? That data is not on their cherry-picked line.

I'll give you a little challenge, kevbo, my little salmon. Provide me one, just one, example, citation, whatever, that carbon dioxide is causing the so-called unprecedented rise in temperature we've experienced in the last several decades.

BTW, what species are you?

I recently heard a report claiming that Salmon is undergoing attack by a widespread disease that is seriously compromising a population already much reduced. It is, I think, a fungus and renders the fish inedible. Biolgists believe that the increase in water temperature, already documented, is the most likely cause.

Are we still debating whether or not GW is real and dangerous? What would constitue proof for the nay sayers, anyway? If nine of ten doctors say you need an operation, and soon, would you scrounge around for evidence that, perhaps, you do not need this? Or, how about advice to "wait and see" by a drug company that sells the pills you are now taking?

PS We don't need to call people idiots.