“Overfishing? There is no scientific definition of overfishing”.
Wrong! Now I know you’re ignorant of the seas. There are a number of definitions and conventions. Not heard of the HCR? Really? And you want us to believe you know something about the oceans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Harvest_control_rule

“These days about 50 million tonnes is produced in aquaculture pens”
Well, if you EVER looked at the links I provide you’ll see it’s a LOT more today, and about half that is sustainable (not drawing on ocean by catch) but the other half does draw on ocean by catch. Which was the point of the article YOU linked to about Peru — are you seriously not remembering all this? It was YOUR article!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Global_total_fish_harvest.svg

“Landlubbers see fishing boats on the surface and fishing gets the blame, however science to date has always known there have not been enough humans on Earth to consume all the fish that oceans WERE capable of producing.”
Absolutely unverifiable piffle, hogwash, tripe, and all that. Look at the wiki above. Read the definitions. You’re WRONG WRONG WRONG! I’m simply not going to be lectured to by the world inside your opinionated and self-focussed brain that has no respect for the world outside your opinionated and self-focussed brain, the world of data. I am simply NOT going to read ANY and ALL post of yours that do not link to credible sources. You have utterly failed to demonstrate anything you say. There is only ONE sane answer to both the questions I asked in the last post. A. You have picked B. Fail.

Your insistence that well under 1% of the oceans cause climate change and the oceanic food web to die is not just eccentric, it's tinfoil hat territory.

Max Green or whatever your real name is, you are a classic case of what you say is what you are.

Have you ever been diving?
Can you swim?

You have banged your own head [as you so often say] too much.

I will not be replying to you anymore.

JF Aus

Earlier you stated:

"It's not coal or farmers killing the GBR, it's nutrient pollution."

What about the far reaches of the GBR where nutrient pollution is not an issue?

In relation to fish stocks; globally they are down, whereas in Australian Commonwealth waters they are basically in good shape.
Check out super trawlers and the damage they have done to fish stocks overseas.

Thanks for providing the PNAS reference; though it is clear you do not fully comprehend the study.

Thermoclines apparently have something to do with the break down of sea ice and ice sheets. Wave action between strata of water bodies is being investigated:

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/projects/arcticmix/

Quote:

" The Arctic is a strange place oceanographically, an up-side down version of the normal ocean in that the surface water is cold and fresh while lurking below is a reservoir of warmer, saltier water, heavier than the surface layer due to its high salt content. One hypothesis in a rapidly-changing Arctic is that increasing open water allows storms to mix this deeper ocean heat upward through the generation of undersea beams of energy called ‘internal waves’, in turn melting more ice. The peculiar nature of the Arctic is what makes a hypothesis of a positive climate change feedback based on vertical mixing possible."

That's a great point Ant.

JF asserts that nutrient pollution alone is killing all the fish or interrupting their breeding grounds or *something.* (Who really knows? The story seems to change. But he is only happy as long as he is yelling "The algae! The nutrients! The oceans are DYING and nobody but poor old me cares or understands!")

But 99% of the oceans are nutrient POOR.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYD28M&d2=MY1DMM_CHLORA

So what's the difference? As you said: some areas are off limits to fishing, and those fisheries tend to recover.

ant,

It’s the total of the nutrient loading that sometimes amounts to an overload, nutrient pollution.

As eastern Australia wind driven alongshore current energy flows north, nutrient input from all sources along the way add to the nutrient load.

The total of that load can vary because some nutrient is taken up along the way by plankton and marine plants. Incoming tides and onshore winds push and draw nutrient loaded surface into bays and estuaries, where there was once prolific plant life especially including relatively rare seagrass nurseries.

Water transporting the sediment mostly exits the GBR lagoon at Cape York, therefore if the flow has picked up nutrient along the way it is likely the nutrient load could be most elevated in the Cape York area. However nutrient dependent near coast plant life including plankton, increases northwards. The GBR lagoon coast does not have ocean waves to drive a strong alongshore current, but SE winds push surface water against the coast.

Importantly, the actual GBR is well offshore away from inshore waters and associated sediment that includes solid and dissolved nutrient matter.

If you look down on the whole actual GBR it can be seen the southern reef is wider than in the far north, and I think that formation is due to the once natural nutrient flow arriving fresh from the south, weakening as supply becomes depleted northwards.

Now I am not anti-progress when I say this.
Massive excavation and re-suspension of estuary seabed resulted in historically unprecedented elevated levels of dissolved and solid nutrient matter going into the GBFR lagoon at the more than usual northerly elevated nutrient source at Gladstone.

I think the unusually elevated total nutrient load is continuing to feed algae now living atop that northerly dead coral. Some of that algae appears older than just from early 2016. More established.

There is also significant nutrient flowing into the Coral Sea from Arafura Sea SURFACE waters pushed ESE during the northern monsoon season.

The total of the nutrient load is not just from farmers or just from coal and gas shipping channels

Ant, I fear you're just feeding the troll and wasting your time. JF's just not interested in science. The voices in his head are just too loud.

It's another post that is conspicuously bibliography-free