Anyone else nervous about the El Niño and Pacific Ocean blob predictions forecasted for 2018/2019? Could it be the one-two punch combo that will deceimate our anadromous fish?
Thanks! Maybe I'll be able to sleep now. I've read that our PNW steelhead frequent waters off Russia and Japan. Wonder how that'll play out??https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/october-2018-enso-update-trick-or-treat
https://www.google.com/amp/s/alaska...m/2018/11/06/record-north-pacific-warmth/amp/
So to summarize, we've seen a dramatic return to the positive NPM phase in recent months, but so far the pattern of unusual warmth is not particularly "blob"-like, and in fact the subsurface data points to the northwestern North Pacific as the focus of the current "marine heatwave".
The other side of the Pacific (Russia - Japan) has more of a warm water blob concern than we do in the Pacific Northwest. The El Nino will be mid compared to January 2016.
And when you say salmonids, I'm assuming you're referring to the anadromous kind. I don't think we're seeing the same level of declines in riverine/lacustrine salmonid populations. Also, I totally agree with you about harvest numbers in addition to concerns around "the new normal." The frequency, intensity and magnitude of hypoxia zones is alarming. Those will most definitely impact species like chinook that tend to stay close to the shelves, whereas steelhead move way offshore, migrating across the Pacific Ocean in some cases. I'm not optimistic...What worries me is that El Nino appears to be the emerging new norm, and conditions suitable for salmonids are now less common than poor conditions. We're seeing significant hypoxia events off our coast every year in most of the 2000s. Those have occurred throughout recorded history, but only rarely prior to the current millennium.
Perhaps, in time, this trend will shift back in a positive direction. In the meantime, now is the time to cut back on harvest quotas. If salmonids are to survive what is almost certainly coming at them for the foreseeable future, we're going to have to stop assuming there is such a thing as a "harvestable surplus." A new paradigm is needed; one that assures planned escapements prior to authorizing harvest (by any user group). Most likely, escapement goals also need to be increased, to account for the poor survival rates fish are experiencing in the ocean.
Of course, even if the political will to increase escapements existed, the habitat might not be able to produce the needed "surplus" smolts. On balance, despite some great habitat work being done, the changing climate is likely doing more to degrade the overall habitat (warmer, lower water with lower levels of nutrients) than our work is doing to restore it.
Not looking good.
Removal of man...is the "shift back in a positive direction"What worries me is that El Nino appears to be the emerging new norm, and conditions suitable for salmonids are now less common than poor conditions. We're seeing significant hypoxia events off our coast every year in most of the 2000s. Those have occurred throughout recorded history, but only rarely prior to the current millennium.
Perhaps, in time, this trend will shift back in a positive direction. In the meantime, now is the time to cut back on harvest quotas. If salmonids are to survive what is almost certainly coming at them for the foreseeable future, we're going to have to stop assuming there is such a thing as a "harvestable surplus." A new paradigm is needed; one that assures planned escapements prior to authorizing harvest (by any user group). Most likely, escapement goals also need to be increased, to account for the poor survival rates fish are experiencing in the ocean.
Of course, even if the political will to increase escapements existed, the habitat might not be able to produce the needed "surplus" smolts. On balance, despite some great habitat work being done, the changing climate is likely doing more to degrade the overall habitat (warmer, lower water with lower levels of nutrients) than our work is doing to restore it.
Not looking good.
Interesting response. How is it possible that the 38,200,000,000 tons of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere every year would not warm the planet?Science...
and not the new "modern politically influenced BS" that is being peddled these day.
0 = 0 so that would actually be 382 tons. I read that in a blog. Science baby. All those zeros are just fake news and sad.Interesting response. How is it possible that the 38,200,000,000 tons of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere every year would not warm the planet?
They've already been decimated.Could it be the one-two punch combo that will deceimate our anadromous fish?
Yes, I hate it when that happens but in my case a washcloth would probably be enough. Alas...Hopefully the flight attendant gave you a blanket to cover the priapism.