global warming Archives - One Fish Foundation

Climatologist Sees Climate Change as Innovation Opportunity

April 11, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Cameron Wake is used to being called “Dr. Doom.” He’s an ice core paleoclimatologist at the University of New Hampshire who’s been studying glaciers and their behavior for more than 30 years. He’s been on the forefront of some of the leading research into climate change, much of which now predicts more than six feet of sea level rise by 2100. That’s not fully accounting for the possible 20-25 additional feet of higher water if all of the earth’s glaciers melt.

So naturally, he does his best to be optimistic.

“Climate change is the innovation opportunity of the 21^st century,” he says, whether at a climate summit hosted by MIT Seagrant in 2014, or at an intimate gathering of 200 in Portsmouth, N.H. on March 28. Even though the range of possible sea level rise jumped 2.6 feet from 2014 to 2016, his insistence on the opportunity angle echoes some of the enthusiasm born of the global climate accord reached in Paris in December.

“Climate changes,” he said. “It always has and it always will. The biggest difference today is that there is an extensive and ever-growing body of scientific evidence that shows that humans are the main driver of that change.”

But, we have time to avoid some of the darkest “Dr. Doom” predictions … if we act now, and decisively, he said.

There is an interesting dialectic at play with climate change that can be a bit challenging to grasp. At the Maine Fisherman’s forum last month, NOAA’s John Hare made a striking comment: “Climate change has a long memory.” The next 25-50 years of climate change are already fixed based on what we’ve done up until now. However, the steps we take now to reduce greenhouse gases, widely accepted as the leading culprit causing global warming, will affect our climate after 50 years or so.

In Portsmouth, Wake described why studying the different strata of glaciers yields so much information about what the climate has done in the past. “Glaciers are great archives,” he said. “We can look at oxygen isotopes to see what has happened.” One fairly constant measure is that when CO2 levels are high, the temperatures are higher, when they are low, temperatures are low.

Wake put some of the need to act immediately and globally in context with some recent data:

Within the past 18,000 years, massive ice sheets that once covered North America and Northern Europe have melted;
To slow long-term climate change effects, we need to keep global CO2 at 400 parts per million. We are now on a path toward 1,000 parts per million;
Arctic sea ice is the air conditioner for the northern hemisphere, reflecting UV rays back into the atmosphere. If that ice melts, it will lead to warming of the atmosphere and the oceans, accelerating global warming;
We’ve seen a significant reduction in Arctic sea ice in the summer since 1975. Sea ice is likely going to disappear in the Arctic Ocean this summer;
The rate of the Greenland ice sheet moving toward the ocean where it melts has doubled in the past decade. One particular glacier, the size of Mount Washington in N.H., has doubled its rate toward the Atlantic;
We may not fully understand the physics of glacial movement and melting in light of global warming for another decade;
There will be no shortage of fresh water in New England. The number of rain events in Southern N.H. with more than four inches in 48 hours is projected to jump from four between 1980-2009 to nearly 12 between 2070 to 2099. This means we’ll have more water falling in fewer events, making coastal and flood plain areas more vulnerable;
“It’s a challenge to talk about future on climate because we don’t know what humans are going to do,” said Wake, explaining why climatologists now use two scenarios representing high and low carbon emissions. While there is little variability between the two scenarios until 2050 because the pattern is locked, potential temperature ranges for New Hampshire vary widely afterward. If we drastically cut greenhouse gases, the average number of summer days hotter than 90 degrees Fahrenheit would be 20-25. If we continue on our current path of greenhouse gas emissions, New Hampshire could experience 50-60 days above 90 degrees;

“We can’t wait until 2050 or 2080 to address this challenge,” he said. “We won’t have enough money in one year to adapt. We need to keep checking back in with the science. Where there is little tolerance for risk, communities should commit to 4 feet of sea level of rise, but be flexible to manage to 6.6 feet.”

Solutions

To begin with, we need to at least meet the emissions goals set at the Paris accord. It was a significant achievement to get nearly 200 nations to commit to do something to reduce carbon emissions, with a goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. But even with those commitments, we’d only keep the global temperature rise to 3 degrees Celsius, many scientists say. We have to get the largest polluters, China, the U.S., India and other countries to cut more.

“We must decouple economic growth from greenhouse emissions,” said Wake. That means leaving a lot of fossil fuels in the ground. To prevent global temperature increases of more than 2 degrees Celsius, we must not burn 82% of the coal, 49% of the gas and 33% of the oil global reserves. We also need to increase annual global renewable energy investments to at least $1 trillion, he said. That kind of investment will likely yield innovations that make renewable energy more affordable and accessible on a global scale.

Most importantly, he said, we need to make personal commitments to reduce our carbon footprints. “I think every home should be its own powerhouse,” he said. Solar panels, efficient heating systems, better insulation, efficient windows, etc. are all some of the ways to reduce the carbon footprint of our homes.

“Think about what you can do. Your family. Your community.”

Resources

Cameron Wake’s slide presentation in Portsmouth

Chasing ice: Incredible video of largest ice calving event (Ilulissat Glacier, Greenland) ever captured on film.

New York Times article on new research showing how quickly the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt

photo: Thin sea ice and a few floating ice bergs near the Denmark Strait off of eastern Greenland. Credit: NASA/Jefferson Beck

All Blog Posts

Changing Oceans, Changing Fishermen

March 6, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Should fishermen be the face of climate change?

This was one of the more compelling questions posed at the Maine Fishermen’s Forum in Rockland on March 4.

It’s an interesting posit with many implications. For anyone in and around the industry, the answer is pretty straightforward. Fishermen are on the frontlines of how climate change impacts fisheries around the world. Along with researchers, fishermen are the first to see changes in everything from migratory patterns to spawning success and recruitment and predator/prey relationships.

Just ask Linda Williams. She is former chair of the Western Rock Lobster Council in Western Australia. Her husband and son fish for western rock lobster. She told a crowd of 300-400 that fishery has undergone mammoth changes in the past decade. Ten years ago, the average annual haul was 10 million kilograms, brought in by 600 boats during a roughly nine-month season. Now it is 5-6 million kilograms, brought in by 250 boats year round. The interesting catch? They are now logging record profits and working less.

So how did this happen? In 2009, lobstermen and researchers noticed a significant drop in the number of late larval stage lobsters in normal locations. Females were releasing eggs earlier than ever, which affected migratory patterns of the lobsters as they grew from larvae. The end result would be fewer lobsters caught in season and a downward spiral. This coincided with a warming trend of about 1-3 degrees Celsius over long-term summer averages, which also coincided with changing currents along the Western Australia coast.

Seeing the potential for disaster, lobstermen, scientists and policy makers worked together to form a quota system based on predictive analyses of future harvests determined by current larval settlement (the numbers and location of late larval stage lobsters). The industry anticipates how changing water temperatures and shifting currents will affect harvest 3-4 years in advance. Now the fishery operates profitably, even as the oceans are warming around them.

That kind of adaptation was the theme from other commercial fishermen. John Mellor fishes for Dungeness crabs and sablefish (black cod) off California. He sensed trouble in the water a year ago, noticing a milky, bluish hue and seeing big schools of anchovies flopping around the surface gasping for air. The culprit was algal blooms sucking up too much oxygen and releasing high concentrations of domoic acid (a neurotoxin) along the West Coast. California’s witness to climate change has coincided with this year’s El Nino, which extended a three-year period of lower than average storm and wind activity that would otherwise mix up the currents and slow the progress of algal blooms and the resulting red tides.

Filter feeders like clams, mussels and worms absorb the neurotoxin, and the crabs eat them, posing a threat to human health. Mellor explained the devastation to the industry when shortly before this season was to begin, California shut down the fishery indefinitely. Crabs represent 2/3 of his income, and he said he was fortunate to have a sablefish permit just to keep operating. Many fishermen are facing foreclosure etc.

“I see you enjoying your lobster fishery,” he said to the audience. “I suggest you keep an eye on the water. If you see it start to change a milky blue, be prepared.” He said fishermen need to adapt as quickly as the oceans are changing to survive.

Keith Colburn, who fishes Alaska king crab and has appeared on the TV show “The Deadliest Catch,” said in 30 years on the water, the most dramatic weather and water changes have occurred in the last 15 years, including the three coldest years and the three warmest years in Alaska. He said 20 years ago, they might have one storm that registers 50-knot winds per year. Now they may have 10-15 storms of that magnitude.

Noting the migration of the lobster fishery out of Long Island South and north of Cape Cod, he said somewhat jokingly, “If I was a Maine lobsterman, I’d be thinking about getting a Canadian passport soon. Each of you came out here to discuss a topic no one wants to think about. But we need to think about it.”

A fisherman from Point Judith, R.I. noted that their lobster fishery has been devastated by black sea bass (a mid-Atlantic species following warming waters north along the coast) and dogfish devouring larval lobsters. As regional waters warmed, more of these predators invaded the region and outnumbered the lobsters and other local species. The local fleet dropped from 150 boats 10 years ago to zero now, by his reckoning.

Scientists keep ringing the alarm bell

Scientists on the front edge of the latest climate research such as John Hare of NOAA and Andy Pershing of Gulf of Maine Research Institute highlighted just how much the water has warmed in the Gulf of Maine and how much that has impacted several native species.

Pershing noted how the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the oceans on the planet at a rate of .23 degrees C or .4 degrees F per year, almost four times faster than anywhere else. He said because of the record warmth of the past several months allowing to El Nino, normal current variability and the recent warming trend, lobstermen could expect this year’s shed (when lobsters shed their shells) to happen anywhere from two to three weeks before the usual timeframe of the first week in July. That kind of predictability helps lobstermen at least have some idea of when their season will be most productive and profitable and plan ahead.

John Hare discussed his recent research methodology, which helps scientists, fishermen and policy makers better predict how climate change will impact growth and migratory patterns of 82 Northeast species. He said 42% of those species have a very high potential vulnerability to climate change, while 50% are likely to change their distribution because of warming waters. (See chart below).

Overall climate vulnerability is denoted by color: low (green), moderate (yellow), high (orange), and very high (red). Certainty in score is denoted by text font and text color: very high certainty (>95%, black, bold font), high certainty (90–95%, black, italic font), moderate certainty (66–90%, white or gray, bold font), low certainty (<66%, white or gray, italic font). Source: Hare et al (2016)

“Warming oceans and acidification are posing a significant threat to fisheries,” Hare said. “I firmly believe we can only face these changes together.”

Which brings us back to the original question posed by chef and author Barton Seaver. He asked if fishermen could be the voice of social change at a time when politicians and scientists are often seen as bloviating by those who deny climate change exists. Perhaps fishermen, whose lives depend on the weather, could deliver a broad enough, “Everyman” appeal to spark a larger movement to minimize greenhouse gases, slow global warming and better manage the health of our oceans. Colburn, the Alaskan king crab fisherman responded, “Being that fishing is America’s oldest job, I think as fishermen we could ban together, we could start to change our patterns.”

But perhaps the question isn’t so much should fishermen be the face of climate change, but will they? As Colburn said, “A lot of fishermen want to believe that the environment is not changing.” So, getting them to sound an alarm may be a tough ask. But as the ranks of those fishermen pushed to the brink swell, like California’s Mellor, or those that found a way to adapt, like Western Australia’s Murray, perhaps there will be enough momentum for a unified voice, as Seaver suggested.

Forums like this one, uniting scientists and fishermen to understand how things are changing and how quickly they’re changing, and to work together to figure out how to adapt are significant starting blocks. And if you can get policy makers, such as John Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, to not only attend such meetings, but state publicly that we need to do something about climate change (as he did here), perhaps there is enough accountability and unity in place for us to do something to protect the climate collectively.

If we can get all of these stakeholders at the same table, working together, as John Hare suggested, we can do better adapting to how rapidly the oceans are changing, and maybe even limit the long-term damage. Doing so would help us better deliver on the Slow Food promise of good, clean, accessible and fair seafood for all.

As consumers grappling with the implications of global warming on the seafood we eat, we should understand that “eating within the ecosystem” is now more important than ever. That is, we should eat what is locally available, sustainably harvested and seasonal. Choosing “invasive” black sea bass here in Maine rather than big name species facing multiple stresses — including climate — is a step in the right direction.

Additional reading

Check out this column by Bren Smith, a commercial fisherman who adapted to the changing climate by embracing the “eating within the ecosystem” philosophy.

All Blog Posts

Oceans Rising Faster Now Than In Past 3,000 Years

February 24, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

I wonder if there will ever be a tipping point for climate change deniers. That is, I wonder if a critical mass of scientific evidence suggesting man-made greenhouse gas emissions could ever sway even some of the most outspoken critics of climate change.

Perhaps not.

But as scientific methods become more exact, the scope and depth of research more extensive, and the conclusions of experts around the world more universal, denial becomes harder, and more futile.

New research released Monday suggests that not only have oceans risen over the past roughly 3,000 years, but that seas have risen faster in the 20^th century than in the previous 27 centuries. Moreover, this century’s global sea level rise is largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, studies say. In effect, the research highlights just how much we have contributed to global warming and global sea level rise above normal fluctuations.

For example, one study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, points to a strong link between global temperatures and sea levels. The study suggests sea levels would have risen by as much as 7 centimeters in the 20^th century without global warming, reflecting the “typical” fluctuations that occur naturally. With global warming caused by man, scientists suggested global sea levels have risen by twice that much or 14 centimeters.

That may not sound like much, but when you account for oceans rising at a current rate of about a foot a century, several coastal communities are already imperiled. If seas rise by as much as four feet by 2100, as many scientists have predicted, communities like Miami, Charleston, S.C. and New Orleans could be under water.

Another study issued Monday, highlights how steadily rising waters have already affected coastal communities, and how much of that is attributable to greenhouse emissions. Scientists used data from instruments called tide gauges, which measure flooding based on above normal water levels in coastal communities around the country. They found that about two thirds of the nuisance flood days (days when waters flooded streets, clogged storm drains etc., but not catastrophic flooding) since 1950 have been caused by man-made emissions. More specifically, researchers found the greatest increase in the number of flood days occurred between 2005 and 2014.

For example, the number of flood days in Wilmington, N.C. jumped from 14 in the 1955-1964 decade to 376 in the last decade of 2005-2014. Researchers attributed 308 days, or more than 80% of those days to human-caused climate change. The researchers also suggested that trend of “nuisance flooding” where low-lying coastal communities experience flooded roads, dying grass, over-taxed infrastructure from high tides amplified by rising oceans will continue, costing billions of dollars in damage and pushing some communities further into danger.

Over time, this kind of flooding also dramatically changes coastal habitat for seafood, forcing many species to relocate, which in turn affects local fishermen as well.

So I wonder how high the pile of scientific and economic evidence needs to get to start changing some of the skeptics’ minds.

Perhaps it won’t happen until they’re flooded with it.

Photo: car driving through flooded street in Charleston, S.C. credit: NOAA

All Blog Posts

Climate Change Could Threaten Several Northeast Fisheries New Study…

February 6, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Go ask Long Island lobstermen … if you can find any … what they think about climate change. Trouble is, there aren’t many left because there aren’t many lobsters left in Long Island Sound. Same thing with Atlantic cod fishermen. There aren’t nearly as many boats targeting cod compared to 25 years ago because there are fewer fish.

We can blame climate change to a degree. No, it would be shortsighted to blame all fisheries depletions on warming waters. Myriad factors including fishing pressure can conspire to harm stock health. But a new study from NOAA underscores a concern many scientists and fishermen share: ever warming waters will continue to dramatically impact fisheries.

Published in the journal PLOS ONE, the study relies on a new methodology to look at how 82 species in the Northeast region have been and will be affected by climate change. Specifically, the study measures which species will be most vulnerable to climate change effects, including ocean acidification, as well as which species’ migratory patterns will most likely change because of ocean warming. In a nutshell, species that live along the ocean floor such as cod, mussels and lobsters, and those like salmon and sturgeon that migrate between salt and fresh water are most at risk.

Some of the species’ responses we already know. As the Gulf of Maine warms faster than 99% of all ocean climates on earth (at a rate of a half a degree Fahrenheit increase per year for the past decade), several native species have reacted. Lobsters have moved north and east along the coast, leaving fisheries in Long Island and Cape Cod in succession. The Northern Shrimp fishery has collapsed in the past few years. Scientists speculate the combination of warming waters limiting spawning and reducing the amount of plankton the shrimp eat is largely to blame. Scientists also say these warming waters limit cod reproduction and health and survivability of juveniles.

Gulf of Maine temperature increases have opened the door to invasive species like black sea bass and scup, and have made bays and estuaries more hospitable to European green crabs, whose numbers have risen exponentially in the past few years. Green crabs wreak havoc on eelgrass flats as they burrow in to eat larval mussels, clams and oysters.

Jon Hare, a fisheries oceanographer at NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and lead study author, said the main purpose of this study is to give fisheries managers and other stakeholders tools to take climate change into account when devising management policy.

“We’re never going to have perfect information,” he said. “The ecosystem is going to change because of a combination of anthropogenic influence such as greenhouse gas and natural climate variability.” To keep up with the pace of that change, which has been dramatic in the past 10 years, Hare and his colleagues developed a methodology that incorporates already established research and factors in expert extrapolation. This methodology helps them predict things like how mussels will respond to warming waters or how they will react to increased acidity in their ecosystem in the next 10 years.

The scientists graded each of the 82 species’ vulnerabilities taking into account different variables, and set those grades to peer review. The result is a composite view of how likely a species may suffer reproductive pressures from increased temperatures or how likely a species may change migratory patterns.

Hare said other studies are beginning in the Bering Sea and off the coast of California, and the National Marine Fisheries Service wants to conduct these studies on all U.S. coasts.

No doubt much discussion will arise from this study and others like it. Some will question the study’s approach, efficacy or even need. Some fishermen may view the study as simply another tool for regulatory bodies like the New England Fisheries Management Council to further restrict fishing without real stakeholder permit. Others might ask why this hasn’t occurred before.

I see a couple of potential positive outcomes. First, the fact that NOAA is not only acknowledging climate change, but also actively trying to take steps to factor that into management decisions is significant. Like any federal agency, NOAA moves at a glacial pace (I wonder how long we’ll be able to use that descriptor…). But Hare and his colleagues eschewed the traditional approach to ecosystem-based management via species-specific analyses, which could take decades, to adopt a faster, potentially more efficient methodology for studying the issue. This is largely because climate change has been transforming ecosystems faster than we can study them.

Secondly, Hare says he hopes this tool becomes iterative — that in fact it will adapt as ecosystems change so scientists and researchers will have a chance to keep closer tabs of impacts than before. Some of fishermen’s frustrations with past NOAA research/policies is that that they are static, and don’t change dynamically with ecosystems. But Hare hopes the iterative process for this methodology will take into account fishermen input when considering which species may be affected by climate change. “Fishing communities will be impacted as well,” he said.

One impact is that some of these communities will start adapting to the changing marine ecosystems and harvest “locally abundant” species that were once considered invasive species. For example, black sea bass have started showing up in lobster traps in Maine because they’ve followed the warming trend north. Now they are an available seafood choice in local stores and restaurants.

I too hope this process becomes more collaborative. Because without that interactive participation in the science and policy making, the process will continue to be viewed by many as a set of unilateral decisions curtailing fisheries at the expense of small scale fishermen. As Hare said, even if we magically stopped all green house emissions now, the lingering effects of warming oceans would continue for decades.

Acting now, collaboratively, is the best chance at present for ensuring we effectively manage fisheries even as warming waters seek to change the dynamics. I attended a workshop a year ago in which scientists (including Hare), fishermen, and policy makers discussed how to better predict climate change impacts on fisheries and how to communicate that to fishermen.

Perhaps this is the first step.

Lobster photo credit: NOAA

All Blog Posts

Rising Temperatures Raising Global Warming Alarms

January 28, 2016October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Summers in New Orleans can all but suffocate the uninitiated. The heat and humidity in August make a five block walk feel like a five mile run in normal conditions. The last time I experienced it for any length of time was in 1985, when I rode the streetcar to and from downtown for a summer job as an accounting clerk. After a couple of days of showing up drenched in my suit and tie, I began tucking my office clothes in a backpack and wearing shorts for the commute. Read more “Rising Temperatures Raising Global Warming Alarms” →

All Blog Posts

Paris Accord Sets Global Climate Change Commitment

December 15, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Something happened in Paris on Friday that many thought wouldn’t.

Agreement.

Agreement by nearly 200 countries that climate change is a significant problem with short- and long-term global implications that we must address collectively. It was an uphill slog. Those countries signed a pact to reduce their carbon footprints and slow the pace of global warming in the coming century.

In a nutshell, after months and years of preparation, with weeks of hard back-and-forth negotiation culminating in two overnight sessions, nearly 200 countries agreed that:

Climate change exists and has the potential to do irreparable harm to the planet;
Global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases is critical to minimizing this harm;
Each country must commit to reducing carbon emissions, and revise those commitments to ever stricter standards every five years;
Each country must demonstrate what measures it has taken to cut emissions via a transparent process, every five years;
The goal is to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, if not 1.5 degrees;
Forest preservation is critical to offsetting carbon emissions, and countries should enact policies to limit logging and save intact forests; and
Developed countries like the U.S., France, England, etc. should take the lead in providing funds for programs to reduce global carbon emissions, including those in developing countries.

Establishing a framework

To be sure, this is a first step. Conference organizers in Paris and elsewhere must have looked at this effort like herding cats. Coal gobbling countries like China, India and the U.S. have traditionally held different views on their responsibilities for and the extent of climate change. Smaller developing countries like the Marshall Islands, which are sounding the alarm bell that they’re losing ground…literally, have completely different views.

Such widespread agreement is monumental in the shadow of the failed 2009 climate agreement in Copenhagen. While the 2009 summit only suggested what to do, this accord is an almost Earth-wide acknowledgement that countries need to tackle this collectively, and a legally binding commitment to do so.

Will it stop global warming completely by on its own? No, say many scientists. The real tipping point would be to prevent the average global temperature increase from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists say that if global annual temperatures rise above 2 degrees, the planet will be past the point of repair, and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will melt, sea levels could rise 20 feet, etc.

But as written, this agreement will only limit global temperature rise by about 3 degrees Celsius if countries achieve their current emissions reductions commitments, according to some scientists. It’s far better than the status quo, which is on track to bring an increase of more than 4 degrees Celsius and potential catastrophe. Still, on the new path the oceans will continue to rise, and polar caps will continue to melt, only at a slower pace.

To meet the agreement’s goal of avoiding damaging climate change, the nations of the world must step up the ambition of their cuts over time. The pact is voluntary for countries to strive for that 2 degree goal. What is legally binding is that each country commits to some kind of carbon emissions reduction, that they commit to continuing to reduce emissions more significantly every five years, and that they demonstrate what they have done, again every five years.

One of the biggest reasons the Paris agreement does not specify benchmarks for each country is that the United States Congress would have to vote on such a measure. And the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would have nixed any such wording. Interestingly, the U.S. Republican party is the only political party in a study of nine developed countries that flat out denies “anthropogenic climate change.” More interestingly, the study suggests that opposition to addressing climate change is strongest in countries with large reserves of oil, natural gas, and/or coal (all of which the U.S. has in abundance).

Reason for optimism

Though it will not stop global warming, this binding agreement sets a precedent for global cooperation to combat climate change and hold each other accountable. Five years ago, this seemed like an impossible task. It also hopefully creates momentum to bring the discussion to the forefront of critical diplomatic and business discussions. It sends a signal that fossil fuels do more harm than good, and should stay where they are. It will force countries to start thinking harder about developing infrastructure for alternative energy, and create a path for industries and investors to spur innovation to scale up clean energy.

And perhaps it sets a framework for more aggressive action on a global scale if the scientific evidence shows our climate is changing faster than predicted.

I’m going to teach middle school students this week about how the warming Gulf of Maine has become home to some invasive species. The European Green Crab, for example, is a warm-water invader that has been showing up in increasing numbers for the past couple of decades. It eats larval shellfish like clams, mussels and oysters. It also destroys eelgrass habitats that are nurseries for many species.

Those kinds of invasive migrations are likely to continue for a while. But I look forward to capping off the classes with a ray of hope offered by the events in Paris last Friday.

Here’s some additional reading:

Science Alert: Here’s what you need to know about the new Paris climate deal

National Geographic: Paris Agreement Catalyzes Global Cooperation Toward a Low-Carbon Future

New York Times: Climate Accord Is a Healing Step, if Not a Cure

BBC: What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?

2012 Republican Party Platform

All Blog Posts

Climate Change: Setting the Wrong Records

October 29, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Not surprisingly, the latest global climate stats are discouraging. Last September was the warmest September of combined global land and ocean temperatures during the 136-years of recorded climate history. According to the report from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, this is the fifth consecutive month of setting such an ignominious record.

Here are a couple of “high”lights:

2015 was 1.62°F above the 20^th century average of 59.0°F. The previous record was Sept. 2014.
2015 was the highest departure from average for any month in 1,629 months since the record began in January 1880.
Global sea surface temperatures were 1.46°F above the 20^th century average of 61.1°F, the highest departure for September on record. Scientists attribute this to powerful El Niño conditions.
The first nine months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world’s land and ocean surfaces, at 1.53°F above the 20^th century average, surpassing the previous records of 2010 and 2014 by 0.21°F.
Precipitation varied widely globally, with some places like Australia getting much less rain than normal, while some areas in Northwest Africa and Eastern Europe getting 200% of normal rainfall.

What does all of this mean? It means the climate is warming faster than we’ve anticipated in the past, particularly as the range of temperature increases above normal are getting higher. It means this global warming trend is going to continue unless we take some serious steps to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and other manmade climate change factors.

Warming oceans could change how, where and even if we find traditionally local seafood here in New England. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than most ocean areas on the planet. This trend could force lobsters to move farther north and east to cooler waters, making it more expensive and time-consuming to fish them. Lobster fisheries could effectively shut down in some areas, as has been the case in Long Island sound and around Cape Cod.

I attended a workshop last year about how to better predict climate change impacts on fisheries. The upshot? We need to act now, and collaboratively among scientists, policy makers, fishermen and community activists to figure out a plan to adapt to climate change, and perhaps slow its progress.

Here are some additional resources about the trend:

NOAA Climate Science Strategy

Union of Concerned Scientists: Climate Hot Map

NOAA: What is El Niño?

Climate Nexus

Photo: Calving glaciers are telltales of global warming.

Credit: NOAA

All Blog Posts

Climate Change Could Have Unintended Benefit in Arctic

October 19, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

There have been enough scary headlines about climate change for us to know that warming temperatures could have disastrous effects on our planet. Increased carbon content from industrial processes leads to higher atmospheric and oceanic temperatures fueling melting glaciers and ice caps leading to rising oceans, etc. Read more “Climate Change Could Have Unintended Benefit in Arctic” →

All Blog Posts

Fishermen and Scientists Discuss Climate Change Impacts On Gulf…

January 5, 2015October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

This blog originally appeared Jan. 5, 2014 on the Cape Ann Fresh Catch website.

One of the benefits of writing about sustainable seafood is the opportunity to attend informative workshops and conferences about the subject. The Island Institute hosted a workshop in Portland in December 2014 about current and future impacts of climate change on fishing in the Gulf of Maine. The Island Institute is a nonprofit aimed at supporting the state’s island and working waterfronts. Chief among these is the fishing community.

Scientists from NOAA, Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) and the National Weather Service met with Island Institute representatives and commercial fishermen to discuss everything from rising water temperatures and ocean acidification to current and future predictive modeling technologies. Fishermen described how they’ve had to change tactics as cod fishing has all but stopped and lobster continue to move down east (north and east along Maine’s coastline) following cooler temperatures. They want to know if they can get more accurate, more predictive data to better plan ahead and adapt for upcoming fishing seasons based on the rapid changes.

Make no mistake. Things are changing quickly in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). In fact, ocean temps are rising faster here than anywhere else in the world. And the dynamic modeling presented at the conference was a bit scary. The water temperature has risen by nearly half a degree Fahrenheit per year for the past 10 years. That’s a big increase ¾ one which analysis suggests has had varied impacts on lobster and cod.

Scientist currently think that warming largely comes from the atmosphere, due to increased CO2 levels stemming from human activity. CO2 accounted for 82% of all greenhouse gases (the main contributor to global warming because it traps solar radiation in earth’s atmosphere) in the U.S. in 2012, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Atmospheric CO2 levels doubled from 1860 to present. Scientists think they will double again in the next 70 years. That could increase global temperatures by several degrees in the same time period … which could have catastrophic impacts on coastal fishing, as well as coastlines, flood zones, real estate, etc.

Then there are the rising acidity levels. Ocean acidification is already occurring. As atmospheric CO2 rises, the ocean PH (which measures acidity) drops. PH levels are measured in very small increments. But when scientists predict PH levels will drop .2 to .4 in 100 years, the ecological impact could be significant. Even slight changes in PH levels could affect the ability of shellfish to develop normally hard shells to fend off disease. The economic impact could be devastating.

Fishermen in attendance talked about seeing cod fishing vanish and watching as lobstering areas have moved up the coast as waters have warmed. The past couple of years have had good to great landing years, but they have come much earlier than normal, and the effect hasn’t necessarily been good for market price. For example, in 2012 there was a glut of lobster on the market with full traps coming early in the season due to warmer water. But the molting season coincided with the prime trapping season, and Maine lobstermen were stuck with low-value product that could not be shipped to Canada (where such shedding lobster are processed) because the plants weren’t open yet. So the industry had a bumper crop, but the downstream effect was a net loss of millions of dollars.

GOM warming also appears to have a negative effect on cod stocks. Andy Pershing, chief scientific officer at GMRI, said his studies so far indicate that warmer water seems to produce fewer cod, meaning catches would be further reduced.

Fishermen at the meeting said they need better communication of trustworthy information so they can more quickly adapt to imminent fishery changes caused by environmental change. But improving the science and infrastructure to be helpful and accessible to fishermen is one thing. Getting lobstermen and fishermen who’ve been doing the same thing for decades to adapt is a much bigger challenge.

One thing is certain. The Gulf of Maine fisheries are changing more rapidly than many northern New England fishermen are really prepared for. Two fishermen from Chatham, Mass. said they’re making much of their living on dogfish and skates and moving further off shore, which is a bigger capital expense. It was a different story 10 years ago, and will be a different story in another 10 years.

Aside from the eye-popping data, the single biggest take-away for me was the kind of collaboration that is essential for developing and maintaining sustainable fisheries. Fishermen sitting down with scientists talking about the data that is now available and the data they would need to make smart decisions. What’s needed next is collaboration with policy makers to effect management plans that will support sustainability and fishermen.

photo: Lobster boat docked at Boothbay Harbor, Maine. William B. Folsom, NMFS