The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership -- a group combining scientists, government departments, nongovernmental organizations and the fishing industry -- in its annual report card for 2012 said the dominant cold-water zooplankton species in the North Sea had declined 70 percent since the 1960s, while many plankton species had moved 10 degrees of latitude north in the same period. That equates to a distance of nearly 700 miles.
At the same time, deepwater species like monkfish had moved steadily deeper to keep cold, while shallow-water species like sole had moved steadily higher with the warmth.
The MCCIP report card also noted that some fish species had already moved north 30 to 250 miles over the past 30 years and said that by 2050 they could have added a further 135 to 375 miles.
Sole, seemingly perversely, has moved south against the trend. In previous winters it always migrated north from the Dutch coast's shallow waters, which became unbearably cold in winter while the deeper North Sea remained relatively warm. Now it stays put as the water remains warm throughout the year.
The warming waters also appear to be a boon for squid, and in Scotland many trawlers are switching to hunting that.
The changing movements and ranges of commercially exploited fish stocks have also produced some unexpected conflicts, with trawlers having to follow the fleeing fish farther afield and into the territories of other nations. This has already happened with mackerel moving from off Norway to off Iceland, while Spanish trawlers are starting to venture into U.K. waters in search of anchovy.
Some winners, some losers
"The model predictions suggest that Iceland and Greenland -- Greenland in particular -- and Norway are probably going to benefit in terms of fisheries from climate change, at least for the next 50 to 100 years," Pinnegar said.
"Things like the cod populations are projected to really boom further north, and it is already starting to happen," he added. "The herring populations are projected to do quite well, too. Those are really big commercial stocks.
"From the modeling that has been done, it looks like the U.K. is almost at the break-even point. We gain some species and we lose some species. But in terms of our fisheries, it will probably balance out almost," he said.
But with the good comes the bad. Invasive species such as the zebra mussel have been extending their ranges northward, and some marine-borne bacteria usually associated with warmer water are also expected to move in.
The marine impact section of the U.K. government's Climate Change Risk Assessment particularly notes the possibility of Vibrio cholerae, associated with outbreaks of cholera in humans from eating contaminated shellfish, arriving in force off U.K. shores as the temperature climbs. There have already been outbreaks in Spain, and scientists in the United Kingdom are on watch.
It also warns of the potential arrival of other water-borne Vibrios such as V. parahaemolyticus, which is associated with seafood bacterial gastroenteritis in humans. This is already very common in the United States, with more than 10,000 cases in a year, against about 40 in the United Kingdom.
"Assessments based upon global sites suggest that changing climatic conditions could result in increased rates of infection and illness in humans via shellfish and through bathing," it says.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentI went swimming at Skegness last week and I can assure you that the Noth Sea is cold enough to freeze your nuts off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI once read that the ocean temperatures would lag earth temps by about 6000 years, if so, did our ancestors cause that temp change way back then? Pokerplyer has a good argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOcean turnover is a gradual process; it is not the case that it waits however long and then flips all at once. There is also no reason to believe that every basin has the same turnover rate. Also, obviously, warming at the surface is measurable at the surface before it is measurable in the depths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, either what you read or what you remember is off; 6000 years is too long. You are also falling into the logic mistake of thinking that one effect can only have one cause. A -> B can be true without B -> A being true.
Plyer apparently thinks that differences in temperature and salinity have nothing to do with ocean currents. They are dependent on each other. As far as that goes, ocean heat content is rising.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/gleckler-human-fingerprint-ocean-warming.html
(Poker, Feel free to read the references for that article and let us know what the author(s) got wrong.)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#Effects_on_global_climate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[references omitted below]
"The thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions, and thus in regulating the amount of sea ice in these regions, although poleward heat transport outside the tropics is considerably larger in the atmosphere than in the ocean. Changes in the thermohaline circulation are thought to have significant impacts on the Earth's radiation budget. Insofar as the thermohaline circulation governs the rate at which deep waters are exposed to the surface, it may also play an important role in determining the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While it is often stated that the thermohaline circulation is the primary reason that Western Europe is so temperate, it has been suggested that this is largely incorrect, and that Europe is warm mostly because it lies downwind of an ocean basin, and because of the effect of atmospheric waves bringing warm air north from the subtropics. However, the underlying assumptions of this particular analysis have likewise been challenged."
You are basing your conclusion on wishful thinking. Changes in the currents are a result of cause and effect just like anything else. You injected the term 'overall' to qualify an argument that is inherently flawed. Temperature rise in one region can effect currents in another. Melting ice can cool water in one current and cause warmer water to up-well in another. It is all interrelated to temperature change and currently the trend is rising temperatures that are greater in number then falling temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEventually you are going to have to face the fact that you can't rationalize your make believe science with flawed logic. Just ask the deniers in the eastern half of the country how their denial is working out.
Apparently one of the ocean currents around the readers of this article is not the Gulf Stream but De Nial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"People have started calling the North Sea the crucible of climate change"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen that' silly. Britain, a mote on a dot has no significance ecologically over any other mote on a dot in the world.
It's cherry picking evidence at it's most anthropological prejudice. Species ranges are shifting constantly and whether it has an impact on fish and chip consumption is ridiculous as science.
Regarding the North Sea and CO2:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_6GMG9Z_Eng
Not all seas are equal.
And anyway a crucible would be a small test area wouldn't it? If the Pacific ocean were 1°C hotter then life would be(and will be) very different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this