El Nino is back!

searun

Well-Known Member
Get your Tuna gear out boys...the ocean is heating up. At the end of last season we saw the invasion of Humbolts, super heating of the water column and now all indications are we into a full El Nino phase. Good thing I didn't throw out my outrigger poles that came with my boat!!:D

Just in case you haven't seen this, here is the latest report:


Scientists Say This Year's El Nino Showing Signs Of Reducing Marine Life Abundance Posted on Friday, March 05, 2010 (PST)

The ongoing El Niño of 2010 is affecting north Pacific Ocean ecosystems in ways that could affect the West Coast fishing industry, according to scientists at NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.



Researchers with the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations
(CalCOFI) at Scripps and NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center report a stronger than normal northward movement of warm water up the Southern California coast, a high sea-level event in January and low abundances of plankton and pelagic fish -- all conditions consistent with El Niño.



Sea surface temperatures along the entire West Coast are 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius (0.9 to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal and at points off Southern California are as much as 1.6 degrees Celsius (2.9 degrees
Fahrenheit) higher than normal. The most unusually high temperatures were mapped around Catalina and San Clemente islands. While strong winter storms caused an increase in coastal sea levels, scientists are investigating whether the higher sea levels are primarily a result of El Niño, a cyclical phenomenon characterized by warming eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean waters.



"Based on our previous experience of El Niño in California, it is likely to reduce ocean production below normal, with possible effects extending to breeding failure of seabirds, and much lower catches in the market squid fishery," said Sam McClatchie, a fisheries oceanographer at NOAA's Southwest Fisheries. "However, predictions are never certain, and CalCOFI and NOAA ocean-observing systems will continue to provide essential monitoring of the situation."



CalCOFI CTD seawater sampling such as this is augmented by data from satellites, research buoys and robotic gliders to track the physical and biological response to El Niño.



A combination of satellite remote sensing and field measurements is offering scientists a broader view of the evolution of this El Niño that was not available during previous El Niños, which were especially strong in 1982-83 and 1997-98. Internet technology aboard CalCOFI research vessels is delivering that information faster.



"You can post data the same day it's collected," said CalCOFI information manager Jim Wilkinson of Scripps Oceanography. "It used to take six months to work up some of the data and interpret it."



NOAA Southwest Fisheries oceanographer Frank Schwing said scientists'
analytical tools provide better ways to assess the strength of anomalies such as warming that are associated with El Niño.



"We're taking a much more ecosystem-based approach to managing the system,"
said Schwing. "Because we are more on top of the observations, we can give a
more timely heads-up to scientists and managers who are interested in the
effects of El Niño."



The two research centers use data collected by satellites and buoy-mounted
instruments to measure sea surface temperature. CalCOFI researchers embark
on quarterly cruises off the California coast to collect vertical
temperature profiles in the upper reaches of the water column. They also
count eggs of commercially important fishes such as sardines and anchovies
as well as measure plankton volumes to estimate the amount of "production"
available to marine organisms. NOAA's Advanced Survey Technologies Group
assesses fish populations through acoustic surveys. In contrast with the
last major El Niño, Scripps now deploys Spray gliders, diving robots that
now gather ocean temperature and other data along transects between CalCOFI
stations.



The NOAA and CalCOFI scientists have observed a drop in biological
abundance, or productivity, that appears to be related to the northward
movement of warm water from the equator. The flow arrives in pulsing Kelvin
waves that are detected by sea level and altimeter monitors and coastal
tidal gauges. The layer of warm water often stifles the upwelling of
nutrients from lower ocean depths that sustain larger populations of fishes
and invertebrates.



The researchers reported finding fewer hake and anchovy eggs than usual in
the most recent CalCOFI surveys. Sanddab and flounder eggs dominated the
samples. Most were collected in a small area east of the Channel Islands.



The scientists added that if El Niño conditions continue, they are likely to
be characterized by weaker than normal upwelling and lower biological
production. El Niño conditions are forecast to persist into spring. If so,
greater biological anomalies than have already been observed may develop.



Scripps Institution of Oceanography, at University of California, San Diego,
is one of the oldest, largest and most important centers for global science
research and education in the world. The institution has a staff of about
1,300, and annual expenditures of approximately $155 million from federal,
state and private sources. Scripps operates one of the largest U.S. academic
fleets with four oceanographic research ships and one research platform for
worldwide exploration.


Searun

th_067.jpg
 
Certainly appears that way. I also watched tonights Nature of Things broadcast on the Changing Oceans. The story was following the research off WCVI in 2009, including the appearance of Humbolts. They are saying the research is showing the ocean is turning eutrophic (lowering oxygen) which is slowly killing off ocean life. There have been dead zones reported off Oregon Coast in 2006, and these ocean conditions are slowly expanding to WCVI. They also reported on changing acidic conditions which are increasing at an alarming rate (200%) in last few years. All linked to global climatic change. Interestingly they are seeing northward migration of species by 60 KM's per year. Doesn't seem like much but over a decade that is 600km's. Alarming changes at a rapid rate. From the looks of things those changes will push pacific salmon further north each year, and new warmer water species will replace them over time.:(

As stated earlier we will have to learn to like fishing tuna...good thing I like sushi:D

Searun

th_067.jpg
 
quote:Originally posted by searun

Certainly appears that way. I also watched tonights Nature of Things broadcast on the Changing Oceans. The story was following the research off WCVI in 2009, including the appearance of Humbolts. They are saying the research is showing the ocean is turning eutrophic (lowering oxygen) which is slowly killing off ocean life. There have been dead zones reported off Oregon Coast in 2006, and these ocean conditions are slowly expanding to WCVI. They also reported on changing acidic conditions which are increasing at an alarming rate (200%) in last few years. All linked to global climatic change. Interestingly they are seeing northward migration of species by 60 KM's per year. Doesn't seem like much but over a decade that is 600km's. Alarming changes at a rapid rate. From the looks of things those changes will push pacific salmon further north each year, and new warmer water species will replace them over time.:(

As stated earlier we will have to learn to like fishing tuna...good thing I like sushi:D

Searun

th_067.jpg

Don't really want to get into this debate again, but they blame EVERYTHING on climate change...when the vast majority of it is unrelated...they do it to get attention on a larger scale...not necessarily saying this is unrelated...but always take it with a grain of salt...

www.serengetifishingcharters.com
 
Don't really want to get into this debate again, but they blame EVERYTHING on climate change...when the vast majority of it is unrelated...they do it to get attention on a larger scale...not necessarily saying this is unrelated...but always take it with a grain of salt...

Yup, agree with that...
Global warming is to blame for almost every ecological problem
that's happened in the last 10 years.
Temperature in Juan defuca has been averaging 45-47 deg.
since last summer which are the coldest temps in recent history.
 
Take your point RS however counter-arguing with 1 year worth of data is moot when talking about climate change...
 
With regard to the plankton thing, it is not a matter of "blaming" it on climate change in order to get more attention on that issue (which wouldn't make any sense in the first place). Rather, it is an explanation. Plankton draw carbon from the atmosphere to build their shells, which sinks to the bottom of the ocean when they die. With the acidification of the ocean, these little buggers can't make shell. Hence, they do not draw carbon from the atmosphere. Hence, temperatures rise at a global level steadily over time. Pretty straight-forward.

I guess a man could doubt the sunrise if he kept his eyes closed.
 
Over the billions of years this planet has existed there have been ice-ages, firestorms,floods, hurricanes and other destructive forces of nature.
Humans have only been a factor for a couple of thousand years at best, and during our tenure on mother earth the pollution we have caused equates to a "fart in a windstorm" in the grand scheme of the planet.
If the Earth can heal itself from huge disasters such as comet's smashing into it hard enough to extinguish all life and begin an ice age, then i believe our impact, while concerning is minimal.
Change is the only constant in the evolution of the planet and nature is
much more powerful than anything man can throw at it.
That said I believe we can all help by reducing green house gases
reducing waste, and respecting our environment.
 
sure thing RS, billions of years with all sorts of natural events. how long has mankind been pumping **** into our one and only atmosphere, a hundred years or so?? that is the very big difference in todays word, believe it or not, makes no difference, the climate is changing in ways that no one understands or has ever happened to this point in time.

the change in the north pacific Ph level is a great example of just how rapid this change has occured and how that change spins down the food chain when krill can't form their exoskeletons. kill the krill, and you have a major change to every critter out in that ocean.

makes what our respective fisheries agencies have done and continue to do add up to not much in comparison. and one of the more amazing thing about those humboldt squid is they can actually use those 'dead zones' to hide from their natural prey. adaptation by these extreme predators has moved them right to the top levels of our food chain. big, bad news from any anadramous fishes.
 
here's an interesting read that will show you how bad things used
to on Earth and it just goes to prove the planet is in a state of constant change , we have very little to do with it :


It's easy to assume that things don't change much over time. For example, in the air that we breathe, there's about 21 per cent oxygen.
Surely, there's always been oxygen in the air?
Well, if you pick a big enough slab of time, you can find periods when there was hardly any oxygen.
Our Earth coalesced into existence about 4.5 billion years ago. It's very difficult to explore that far back in time, but we are getting closer to working out the story of oxygen.
This story is a complex mixture of geology and biology, of rocks and life, with chemistry and physics thrown in.
It's pretty certain that from 4.5 billion years ago, to about 2.7 billion years ago, there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere.
But, about 2.7 billion years ago, it seems that some blue–green algae 'invented' photosynthesis. These creatures could turn sunlight into energy. They also squirted out a waste product — oxygen.
But despite their efforts, the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere hardly rose at all for the next 300 million years.
The oxygen was being mopped up by volcanic hydrogen sulphide and methane, and kept on reacting with these gases for a colossal 300 million years.
Finally, beginning about 2.4 billion years ago, we had the first great oxygenation event — a great slow surge in oxygen levels up to about two per cent, that took about 100 million years to complete.
That two per cent oxygen is not much compared to our current 21 per cent, but it was huge compared to what had come before.
But there was a problem. The methane was a powerful greenhouse gas, and had been keeping the Earth warm. (The sun was a lot weaker back then.)
Yup, about 2.3 billion years ago, the Earth did get oxygen. And the Earth also cooled down so much that it turned into a giant snowball for about 300 million years.
There was virtually ice from pole to pole.
About 2 billion years ago, the big freeze finished. The Earth warmed up, and over the next 200 million years, the oxygen levels dropped almost to zero, before recovering back to roughly their previous level of about two per cent.
We're not exactly sure why this happened, but it seems to involve a complicated dance of chemistry and physics, rocks and plants.
So then, beginning about 1.8 billion years ago, the oxygen levels stayed fixed at two per cent for about a billion years — a period known as the boring billion — that lasted about one quarter the age of our planet.
The oceans were like stinking sewers, which fits in with the name of boring billion. But the latest theory is that the stinky oceans were actually the crucible, the cradle of life.
Life evolved many strange experiments — red algae, green algae, lichens, and so on. So the boring billion years was, in reality, not so boring.
And then, about 750 million years ago, the boring billion changed. For the next 100 million years, the oxygen levels climbed in a series of dramatic jumps, and with each jump, the Earth froze and turned into a snowball.
But this time, there was no going back. Oxygen levels kept on going up, and never again went down to two per cent.
Over the reign of the dinosaurs, the oxygen levels varied enormously — from much lower than today's levels to much higher.
At the beginning of the reign of the dinosaurs, about 230 million years ago, the oxygen levels were lower than today's levels — only about 12–16 per cent.
By around 200 million years ago it had rocketed to about 27 per cent, and by the time of the big asteroid that rocked the dinosaurs, it had reached around 31 per cent.
The dinosaurs that lived with extra oxygen in the air would almost certainly have benefited from it. It would have given them more speed and endurance.
These more recent dinosaurs (living in air with 31 per cent oxygen) would have really been pumped. They would have had quite different oxygen metabolism in their cells, as compared to the early dinosaurs that had to survive breathing air that carried oxygen levels of only 16 per cent.
The oxygen levels in the air affect your body. A level of 16 per cent is enough to keep you alive, but you won't think very clearly. It's roughly the level in the air you breathe out as you exhale. And it will keep another person alive in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
And it's also about what you get as a passenger in a jet. But you'll be relieved to learn that the pilot and co-pilot get better air with more oxygen, so they can think more clearly, and you can breathe easier.

Update
One source in the literature said that the oxygen percentage in atmosphere was about 35 per cent at time of the big asteroid collision with Earth (65 million years ago).
Published 02 March 2010
© 2010 Karl S. Kruszelnicki Pty Ltd
Karl Sven Woytek Sas Konkovitch Matthew Kruszelnicki, AM (born 1948[1] in Helsingborg, Sweden) is a scientist, who is best known as an author and science commentator on Australian radio and television. He is usually referred to as Karl Kruszelnicki or as Dr Karl.

He holds degrees in mathematics, biomedical engineering, medicine and surgery. He has also studied astrophysics, computer science and philosophy. He has worked as a physicist, labourer, roadie for bands, car mechanic, film-maker, hospital scientific officer, biomedical engineer, TV weatherman, taxi driver and medical doctor.

Kruszelnicki is the Julius Sumner Miller Fellow in The Science Foundation for Physics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney.[2]

i added this so Reelfast won't thinking i'm posting crap ;)
 
Ocean cooling in recent years, interesting read
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

heres that fluctuation you were talking about r.s.
http://biocab.org/Global_Warmings_and_Coolings_Since_Medieval_Age.jpg/img] if you do a search they have data going back even thousands of years more

Bottom line is, whether the "climate change" is natural or human induced, nothing can be done to stop it and we might aswell hang on for the ride. If its natural, we cant do anything. And people/society is not going to change our habits or living styles. Nice to think it might happen, but it wont.
 
If this science is accurate that global warming exists, politicans should have got all the emissions reduced immediately, the global warming will disappear, ocean conditions would be stable and good.
 
you could shut everything down tomorrow and it won't turn things around, not possible. as i said, you can believe whatever blows yur skirt up, makes no difference, climate change is happenning all around us and we are the culprits in a thousand and one ways.

its also important that when you quote stuff, you post accurate citations as tracking back to the source is important. there is so much BS out there posted by the gas/oil/mining industries, or those funded by these major poluters, that everyone has to be super careful in sucking in information meant to simply hide the truth.
 
dear Reelfast;sounds to me like you are already an acolyte of Al"manbearpig"Gore and so i'm assuming you haven't kept up to date with all the 'reel' facts.ever heard of "Climategate"?? the IPCC (Jones,Mann,Pauchari,Trenberth et al)have been caught red-handed refusing FOI requests,lying,and manipulating data.and despite what Gore says there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming(AGW)just a carbon credit trading scam he dreamt up with Kenneth'ENRON'Lay...
 
sorry their backlash, i do keep up to date on the latest 'gossip' being put out by the space selling media. sort of like '...net pens are good, buy atlantic salmon...' i'm sure you believe that as well 'cause the media printed it............

'climategate', the media invented handle, simply points out that even scientists can't be counted on to tell the whole truth all the time. that does not negate, change, or in any way modify what the climate is doing.

and, again, that is why when posting snippets of 'information' you also need to track back on the source to see if you are being sucked in. kind of like the commercial fish lobby telling you through third party sources that they fund, that everything is great, stop yur whinning.

no different, just a different topic with media spin to sell ad space, careful what you read and believe, '..the truth is out there..'
 
quote:Originally posted by reelfast '..the truth is out there..'

The truth is hiding in the shadows of the opposing perspectives laughing it's little heart out.

www.kayaks2.com
 
Had you ever been to places like Mumbai or Beijing or Mexico City then you'd believe that human impact on mother earth is huge and relevant. Or ever taken a tour through the Alberta oilsands - it will blow you away what humans can do to alter nature... Some of you should go exploring a little further than downtown Langford before thinking you`ve seen and understood it all.
 
It's apparent close to home too, but some people pretend not to see it. There is an oily sheen on the surface of every bay and cove on the south Island. Plastic garbage is washed up and strewn across even the remotest beaches. A suspicious green haze is ever present in the air above JDF Straight. Marine animals are becoming toxic, their flesh and organs accumulating heavy metals and poisonous chemicals. We can't harvest shellfish anywhere near a human habitation. The list goes on and on. It isn't all linked to global warming, but it is all linked to human industrial practices.

I agree that other forces may also be at play. I agree that it may be too late to save ourselves. I agree that life will go on in some form or another in the millenia following the current mass extinction. But none of this can ground a denial of humanity's significant and harmful impacts on the climactic and ecological conditions of Earth. Nor is it reason to abdicate our responsibility, as either the probable cause or the possible solution.

Removing yourself from these grave issues by arguing about scientific papers you probably haven't read and probably don't understand is a cheap trick. The evidence is observable all around us all of the time, and none of us needs science to make it believable. Nor can science disprove it. The garbage is visible on the beach, on the water and in the air. You have all seen it. In the face of this type of evidence, denials of the significance of human impact are completely untenable.

In a sense, the craven "fart" analogy is right on point. When you let one go in the kitchen, it stinks and it lingers for a while. Extrapolating from this, when you discharge the effluent from burning trillions of tonnes of hydrocarbons into Earth's atmosphere, this too will stink and linger. It is one thing to let the scientists debate the finer points of the lingering stink. But to argue that, because there is scientific debate, we can all suspend our intrinsic understanding that every cause has an effect is ludicrous. And, with no personal offence intended for R.S., it is cowardly to deny that we, as a species, are at fault. Maybe we can't fix it, but at the very least, it is time to man up and accept that we are a big part of the problem.

There are two things I believe unite every one of us on this forum: a love for nature and a sincere hope that our children and the next generation will be able to experience and enjoy the same natural wonders that invigorate us. What other incentive do you need before you accept that the natural world as we know it is in trouble, and rise to the challenge of trying to preserve it? You don't have to do everything, but for goodness sake do something.
 
No offense taken S2... We all have opinions and that's what makes
these forums interesting.
Im not sure if Global warming is real,but i do know there are a lot of people making big $$$ on it.

I can't deny pollution of our earth,oceans and atmosphere is bad,
however the earth will continue it's everlasting course of change
with or without the human race.
(Just my 2 cents) :)
 
Back
Top