Follow this blog:
RSS

The incredibly shrinking fish

By | October 5, 2012, 3:14 AM PDT

Nemo will become even harder to find, as he gets smaller. You might want to look for him in the North Sea, because he's likely to flee toasty tropical waters.

Throw jeans in a hot wash, and they’ll come out smaller. Why should creatures in a warming ocean be any different?

According to a story by the BBC, a new study predicts that global warming will shrink fish by up to 24 percent of their size. Unlike with Levi’s, there’s no pre-shrunk option. These fish are simply doomed to get smaller as their own rising body temperatures increase their demand for oxygen, of which there won’t be enough to sustain their growth.

Okay, my comparison to red tab 501’s is glib. Cotton clothing shrinks because the fiber tensions weaken and the fabric collapses, not because of oxygen deprivation.

Nevertheless, you get the point. Bad news for fish and fisheries in this new analysis by the University of British Columbia with a team of others, first published in Nature Climate Change.

Research had already suggested that global warming is threatening fish distribution and reproductive systems, and generally upsetting aquatic ecosystems. The latest finding compounds those problems. Smaller fish are less likely to reproduce, for instance.

The study modeled climate change between 2000 and 2050 using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a joint effort by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Association. It forecasts fish will shrink between 14 percent and 24 percent in that time frame.

Another consequence of warming: Fish will move toward the poles. Tropical species will start to appear in places like the North Sea, according to the study. I guess you could call that the rinse cycle.

Image: Republic of Code

More fish tales on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
11
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+3 Votes
+ -
The problem with this analysis
The problem with this analysis is: 1) There's absolutely no evidence that sea creatures are shrinking in size, 2) The fish stocks which have commercial value appear to be decreasing in numbers and size primarily to overfishing. With the bizarre logic advanced by these "authors", people should be getting shorter too - which we're not.
Posted by ajrmd
5th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Shrinking Fish
No, no, heat expands things! For example, summer days are longer because of heat expansion.
Posted by czmmh@...
5th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Fairly weak study.
Fish size is determined by a multitude of factors.

Water quality being #1 with food supply a close second. Population, or how much competition there is for the food supply is probably the next biggest factor. Predation, to include over fishing, is likely next on the list.

For example, the average size of many big game fish like marlin and tuna have shrink in recent decades because of over fishing. Their food supply has been reduced by overfishing and pollution and they are simply not living long enough to get large because they are overfished.

But if this study and its prediction is treated as valid, a global warming supporter could look at the raw data on game fish size and proclaim the size reduction is because of global warming over the same period of time. They would be, as this study is doing, ignoring other factors.

This is a very simplistic study of one tiny aspect of fish life. The entire purpose of this study is to make a dire prediction in an attempt to reinforce the crumbling case for manmade global warming.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 5th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Fairly weak study, not a study
This is not a study, not really. A study would include real life observations or real data. This is a guess based on an impossible (per IPCC) model. First of all, the IPCC says that you cannot predict climate in the future (longer term) because of the nature of the climate system - a chaotic, non-linear coupled system. Secondly, the models contain assumptions regarding feedback loops that have been proven wrong so even short term predictions are not reliable.
As has been pointed out, the casual analysis appears to be deficient.
The only type of study that this can be called is a poor one.
I do marvel at the fact that supposedly smart inteligent people continue to publish things like this.
Posted by CSouthard
5th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Agreed.
Study was their word.

Poorly researched essay might be better.
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Fairly week analysis by you
" ... as this study is doing, ignoring other factors."

You didn't even bother skimming the study did you? They did not ignore other factors, just concentrated on expected changes from global warming.

" ...the crumbling case for manmade global warming. "

Thanks for the belly laugh wink
Posted by riverat1
5th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
What did I miss?
The core of the story is this.

"The study modeled climate change between 2000 and 2050 using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a joint effort by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Association. It forecasts fish will shrink between 14 percent and 24 percent in that time frame."

What other factors did it discuss?

The only other point mentioned is a brief and vague "Smaller fish are less likely to reproduce, for instance." No mention of what they mean by that. No discussion on how small size limits, supporting overfishing, allow fish to be caught before they are old enough to breed, but I'll give you that one as being implied.

What else is there?
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 9th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Shrinkage
Interesting research and predictions. My research (and that of Seinfeld's
George) suggests that it's 'cold' water that causes personal shrinkage happy
Posted by TerryBoyle
5th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
A sage
Thank you Terry. George was a wise one. We should quote him here more often...
Posted by markhalper
5th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
small fish
Don't forget, we're also eating more of the little fish that the big fish eat - we're putting our premium fish on a diet!
Posted by aniaksdh
8th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
galactic summer
the earth loses its oxygen in growth factor Why? Because the earth always did! The gigantism of prehistoric insects proves us in reverse too! So if oxygen is lost by metabolism by galactic seasons, the CO2 levels rise thus always automatically. When Co2 is rising all the creatures in evolution get smaller, because the sea is becoming more acidic. Please research and google for the "galactic summer" and find the context for yourself.
Posted by Goldstaender
14th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!