How salmon numbers rise and fall during El Nino and La Nina
Greenies shriek when salmon numbers fall but it is part of a natural cycle
Nate Mantua, Climate Scientist at NOAA Fisheries, explains how salmon numbers rise and fall during El Nino and La Nina.
It’s one of the most iconic shots in nature documentaries: salmon, in slow-motion, leaping above rushing river rapids and dodging the open jowls of hungry bears, all for the sake of reaching their nesting grounds.
Their treacherous journey is a tale as old as time. But outside of a bear’s voracious appetite, another factor can impact the salmon’s journey and the survivability of the fish they spawn: the weather.
In the United States, salmon are primarily found in the waters of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Given the coastal nature of these regions, the weather they experience is largely dictated by the conditions of the Pacific Ocean.
Oceanic temperature changes, in particular, create certain weather conditions that can have a significant effect on the amount and quality of cold water in salmon habitats. This, in turn, affects the health and numbers of salmon.
The role of El Niño and La Niña
Oceanic temperatures and weather changes are driven by extreme weather cycles known as El Nino and La Nina.
El Nino is a cyclical climate pattern that sees the warming of ocean waters around the tropics. In contrast, La Niña is a cyclical climate pattern that sees a cooling of tropical ocean waters.
These cooling and warming events cause ripple effects throughout the Pacific Ocean and around the world.
"This is a phenomenon that's totally natural — it's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years," said Nate Mantua, a research scientist in NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
"It's something that scientists got excited about decades ago because it affects so much of the earth's climate and it also affects the oceans and marine life and fisheries in sometimes unpredictable ways."
One of those ways involves the size of salmon populations in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.
According to Mantua, in Alaska, El Nino typically brings a milder and wetter winter with more snowmelt and rain-fed runoff. This runoff feeds the waterways with plenty of cold water, creating prime habitat for breeding in freshwater and improved ocean conditions for salmon once they go to sea.
But further south in the Pacific Northwest, Mantua said this same El Nino event brings a warmer and drier winter, along with a warmer ocean.
This means that less snow falls, creating a smaller snowpack in the mountains during winter; and because of the small snowpack during an El Nino winter, when spring arrives, there is less snow for the warmer temperatures to melt. This creates less cold water flowing into the watersheds, which leads to a degradation in the freshwater habitat for salmon.
During a La Nina year, the effects on each location are reversed.
According to Mantua, the colder ocean currents disfavor Alaska salmon by bringing in a drier winter, while benefiting salmon in the Pacific Northwest by bringing in colder storms and heavier snowpacks to the region’s mountains.
"The ocean currents and ocean temperatures tend to change in ways that also make it more productive and more of a cold water subarctic ocean food web, where salmon grow faster and survive at higher rates and come back in bigger numbers," Mantua said.
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/salmon-el-nino-la-nina?mc_cid=0e1d8c6ecd&mc_eid=cc88839e92
********************************************Empirical observations show no sign of ‘climate crisis’
A systematic review of climate trends and observational data by an eminent climate scientist has found no evidence to support the claim of a climate crisis.
In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts. Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved.
And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity.
Professor Humlum said:
“A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”
*************************************************
Politicians should let the market solve the energy crisis
What policies should the government adopt in response to the energy crisis? When thinking about any policy, the correct place to start is to consider what kinds of solutions the market would produce absent any government intervention.
Markets will always produce some kind of answer, and the market answer will often be very good in many respects. Policymakers should not assume they are intervening in a void, where almost any well-intentioned action might be better than nothing. Instead, they should always be more humble, seeking to understand what the market might do, accept that the market response is likely to be pretty good, and think about how, if at all, they can make that market response better and how to be careful not to impede the good features that a market response would produce.
In the case of the energy crisis, let’s imagine that the market is left alone, and believes the government will not interfere. In this scenario, there would be a huge effort to create and collect more energy, because of the very high prices at present. Households and businesses would use less energy if they could. This would almost certainly still leave many households with a large gap between their incomes and their expenditures. So workers would demand higher wages to pay their bills, either from their current employers or in a new job. Some workers would get these wage rises; others would lose their jobs. Some households would still find that, even after cutting back on their energy usage and perhaps getting a wage rise, they would still face shortfalls. If they felt these shortfalls were temporary (perhaps because energy prices might fall back in future or perhaps because, given longer, households might be able to cut back more or raise their incomes more) they might be able to borrow from the private sector to cover the gap. Businesses facing similar shortfalls would most likely do the same, as long as they were able to get a loan.
The above set of market solutions would have many good features. There would be strong incentives to create as much new energy as possible as quickly as possible and to cut back where feasible. The most productive workers would get salary rises. Workers in the wrong jobs or businesses that were unviable would be forced out and that labour and capital would be released for more productive uses. Savers would have the opportunity to lend to households and business that would be viable longer-term, getting a return on those loans.
What a government should want is for all the above to occur, but with the poor protected by benefits rising with their costs, and with some macroeconomic smoothing via reduced tax rises or tax cuts. What a government should not want (should absolutely not want) is for the above process to be stopped altogether or be mainly replaced by government action.
Where the government should intervene is in benefits for low-income households. Benefits and benefits thresholds currently rise in line with inflation anyway. But inflation as measured by the CPI index does not accurately reflect the cost rises lower-income households experience. A different measure should be used. And, whereas annual benefits rising each April is adequate when inflation is low, with inflation now so high this needs to be more frequent. Benefits will need to rise in October, and to do so to a level that anticipates some of the inflation rises over the winter, so benefits recipients can cover their bills.
For average income households, however, there should not be any special benefits. Neither should the energy price rise be suppressed by the government capping the price and subsidising energy retailers. Denying economic reality by paying subsidies to shield consumers from inflation is the short road to economic ruin.
High energy prices mean economic pain for us all. We cannot pretend that away. Engaging in massive borrowing to stop the price mechanism from telling us the truth – that we should all be using less energy if we can and those able to should create as much new energy as they can – will not make that unpleasant truth go away. And if we do not allow the price mechanism to ration our energy use and guide energy use to where it is most economically effective, we may well end up with rationing instead.
There is probably going to be a recession. To help with that, the government can avoid raising taxes as much as currently scheduled, at least temporarily. It may even be able to reduce some taxes. There is inflation, so interest rates must rise. Macroeconomic management is the right response to a recession, not manipulation of individual prices.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/politicians-should-let-the-market-solve-the-energy-crisis
***************************************************Australia: Government releases 10 sites for oil and gas exploration, angering crossbench
A surprise from a Leftist government
The federal government will release a further 10 sites for exploration for new oil and gas projects off the coasts of Victoria, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, triggering rebukes from crossbench senators who say it doesn’t align with the government’s own climate goals.
Industry Minister Madeleine King announced the release of the sites, totalling 46,758 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters, on Wednesday saying it would play an important role in securing future energy supplies.
“The annual release of areas for offshore petroleum exploration supports ongoing investment in the nation’s petroleum sector, which is vital for the economy and meeting the energy needs of Australians,” King said.
“At the same time as we strive to reduce emissions it must be emphasised that continued exploration for oil and gas in Commonwealth waters is central to alleviating future domestic gas shortfalls.”
The new sites are in Commonwealth waters in 10 areas, including Victoria’s Gippsland basin and Western Australia’s Carnarvon basin.
Australia remains a net exporter of gas, and imports much of its oil due to the lack domestic of oil refinery capacity.
According to an analysis by the International Energy Agency last year the world cannot build any new oil and gas projects if it expects to meet Paris Agreement climate goals.
Senator David Pocock said on Wednesday night he was concerned the government was pursuing “business as usual” with the oil and gas industry given the IEA’s analysis and the government’s own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the release of the sites “made a mockery” of its own climate targets with the announcement.
“We already have enough oil and gas in reserves to trigger catastrophic climate change to our planet,” he said.
He noted that the Morrison government had stopped the controversial Pep-11 exploration off the coast of NSW due to community concerns and that while in opposition Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had agreed it should be halted.
“If opposing fossil fuel exploration due to community and environmental concerns was good enough for NSW, then it is sheer hypocrisy not to do the same for coastlines right around Australia,” Whish-Wilson said.
Anthony Albanese declared an “end to the climate wars” after Climate Minister Chris Bowen negotiated support for Labor’s 43 per cent target to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which was approved by the new House of Representatives at the start of August.
But King’s announcement follows warnings from Greens’ leader Adam Bandt and Pocock that they will use their casting votes in the Senate to enforce the target by opposing any legislation that approves high-polluting new projects.
King also announced the approval of two sites for greenhouse gasses to be stored underground in offshore geological formations as part of potential future carbon capture and storage projects.
“Carbon capture and storage has a vital role to play to help Australia meet its net zero targets,” she said.
Climate scientists and activists argue that despite billions being spent, large-scale carbon, capture and storage has never worked commercially.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment