Siliggy,

Where are you? f.y.i.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796304000211
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064507002044

Ah, he linked to some science! But such a narrow sample. Here we are discussing what on earth could POSSIBLY be harming most of the globe's fishers, and so JF focusses on ... the Labrador sea?

"an arm of the North Atlantic Ocean between the Labrador Peninsula and Greenland. The sea is flanked by continental shelves to the southwest, northwest, and northeast. It connects to the north with Baffin Bay through the Davis Strait.[3] It has been described as a marginal sea of the Atlantic.[4][5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador_Sea

I repeat: It's MARGINAL. It's not even a large fraction of the Atlantic, let alone the mighty Pacific.

Anyway, we already saw a much more compelling argument from your earlier source that indicated plankton could become a FEEDBACK worth an extra 20% of warming! But of course, being a FEEDBACK it is AFTER the event. What event? CO2 induced climate change, involving all the known laws of physics. Imagine that, if you can? ;-)

You're proving my point for me again: you've got NOTHING on the WORLD'S oceans and why MOST OF THE PLANET'S fisheries are in decline. High algal areas are under 1% of the world's oceans, but we're removing over 150 MILLION TONS of sea life a year. Gee, I wonder what's killing the oceans? ;-)

This is a great show by the ABC, and is well worth 90 minutes of your time. It discusses the SUPER-greenhouse that caused the world's oceans to die, and pretty much MOST of the oceans to be covered in algae! The oceans DIED! Ironically, it greatly benefits us today by creating the raw biomass that made oil. It's a long story, but the bottom line is this: we really don't want climate change because the oceans might go anoxic and die, filling with cloudy algae. So I am concerned that our entire oceans don't fill with algae, I really am. Because it would mean we had ALREADY failed on climate change!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

J F Aus here are two links that will both interest you. Max Green is good at explaining stuff so after reading this first one he may be able to put in writing exactly how wrong he has been.
Algae from coral may change rainfall in QLD.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-14/how-the-great-barrier-reef-coral-impacts-rainfall/7928714
It may even happen without algae.
https://powerglobal.us/2016/04/29/massive-global-cooling-process-discovered-as-fraudulent-un-climate-change-enforcement-framework-sells-out-national-soveriegnty-on-a-global-scale/

ant,

Apologies for delay answering the points you raised. The OLO 350 word and 4x24 hr post limits sometimes create writing and editing problems as you would know.

I am wondering where you got the impression fish stocks in Australian Commonwealth waters are in good shape. What scientifically is “good shape”?

When I saw that super trawler arrive I thought they don't know what the state of fish stocks are in Australian waters. Then I began to think they might be covering their way to load millions of dollars of toothfish from Antarctic waters.

Toward the mid 80’s I met the father of a respected and experienced fishing family at Eden on the NSW south coast (waters that supertrawler later wanted to fish). I did a 4 Corners interview with that fisherman. The ABC called the program "Learn To Eat Shark". LOL. Now sharks are devastated too.
It is said the NSW towns of Eden and Bermagui used to be covered with fish, but not anymore, those towns now commercially dead.

Commonwealth waters are defined by a legal boundary, not biologically involving ecosystems.
Australia is now importing over 70% of fish product used annually, exporting high value abalone and aquaculture product but virtually no wild fish, definitely no big tonnages like previously.

Almost every Australian town used to have a fish shop selling Australian fish but not anymore.
At 1982 roadshow film screenings I experienced a tough NSW fisher-woman stand up crying because of the family losing their boat and house due to collapse of fishing income to pay loans. That lady said government fisheries had advised to buy bigger equipment to survive.

Look at the price of local fish. LOL. $40 a kilo for NSW snapper for example. And 100 grams of aquaculture salmon at $6.00 amounts to $60 per kilo, i.e $100 to $200 for one fish.
Fresh local fish used to be cheaper than meat, now it's the opposite, worse in most countries overseas.

Continued………….

Cont’d…….

While diving in 1970 overseas (pre-supertrawler) I wrote about local fresh fish costing 3 times more than frozen imported fish, writing to explain that diving there was boring.

Australian history records Sir James Kirby and his mate fishing for the weekend off Sydney, returning with over 400 pounds of snapper. These day’s that’s about 200 kilo at $40 per kilo, $8,000.00 just for a weekend amateur fishing. LOL,
Show the fish in Commonwealth waters now. We could earn a fortune.

Yes, super-trawlers and apparent damage overseas, but it is the food web supply nurseries that are supposed to feed the wild fish including in Commonwealth waters, and worldwide those nurseries have had a virtual hysterectomy.
Nobody fishes for seagrass.
Nutrient overload feeds algae epiphyte growth that shuts down essential photosynthesis, killing seagrass leaf.
Small food-web fish are seagrass dependent. Seagrass depends on water quality.

There are no food-web nurseries in Commonwealth waters. Tuna in Commonwealth waters depend on food dependent on sheltered coastal seagass nurseries.

The bigger fishing boat idea was to reduce cost of fishing effort and overheads.
While It appears big boats caused the depletion, and sure they had impact on already devastated stocks, there has not been enough food for fish and consequently populations have collapsed due to unsuccessful breeding.
Hungry animals do not breed successfully. Fish are not immune to starvation.

Ask older coastal fishermen where the flocks of diving seabirds have gone, flocks that used to dive on common and numerous teeming schools of small fish, with big fish underneath chasing small fish to the surface. Ask them the old timers, ant.

Read into the State of the Marine Environment Report, (SOMER) (Zann), about 50% loss of seagrass on the NSW coast alone. Queensland has never had such a study so the whole SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem including in Commonwealth waters has not had a SOMER study.

The UN appears ignorant of the situation. Perhaps ignorance with intent, I do not know.
A Royal Commission could settle fact of the situation/s.

Siliggy

I had to laugh at your second reference in relation to isoprene it was discussed when the research was first published here on Onlineopinion, Braebart had written about it. One of the studies authors had to repudiate the message that deniers were pushing. Isoprene has very little impact on climate. Your reference is complete garbage. When the volume of sea ice in the Arctic is a quarter in 2016 of what it was in 1980; and, a day or so ago they had not had snow at Barrow, Alaska; the powerglobal reference is farcical.

In relation to the ABC, the scientists interviewed were in the process of establishing a hypothesis.

JF Aus

In relation to fish stocks, I heard an interview on the radio a couple of days ago; the comments were about Commonwealth waters, not State waters. Waters beyond where most recreational fishermen would go. Egg counts of small pelagic fish showed there had been a small drop in numbers; but, not enough to be concerned about. The question is wherever the super trawler nets fish, does that have an impact on local sports fishing? What about the by catch; the super trawler has been netting protected species.
Blue fin tuna and mako sharks are threatened species overseas through over fishing, there a good stocks in Australian waters.