Ocean News

[Yobarnacle]

caught many Mingo this size

white snapper this big or a little larger

lots of these

many red snapper this size

and a few big ones

Leave filets attached by skin to the tail. Makes fileting fast and easy. Carpet sample squares are good non-slip fileting surfaces. Pitch when finished. Plenty more around.

There is a lot of meat on that third central fillet. Don't waste it. Just trim away the rib cage. That's where the fine bones are. The spine section makes good fish stock for chowder and gumbo. nearer the bone, sweeter the meat.

 

[SamSam]

somebody has reading comprehension problems, and this isn't the first time, either

Posted...
"Greta Thunberg gives €1m award money to climate groups "

The reply...

"I lost interest in prizes and awards meaning anything, when Obama won the Nobel prize, for what accomplishment? Got elected president! By the way, I voted for him that first term, but not the second."

First, the self proclaimed Master Debater completely misses the point about the award. It's not that she got it, it's that she turned right around and gave it away.
Second, within the same sentence, the Master Debater loses track of anything relative to the post and tangents off to a rant about RWW politics.
Third, I agree with the post.

"somebody has reading comprehension problems, and this isn't the first time, either"

 

[Will Gilmore]

Don't waste it.

Yup.
The throat is annoying the tenderest, on grouper, the cheeks are the best. I'm a grouper fan, myself.
Learned about eating the parts that normally get thrown out from the Greeks who came down in the evenings from Tarpon Springs to salvage all those free and delicious parts after the headboats came in.

And, I was eating bait squid cooked on the boat's burger grill before anyone had heard of calamari . Everyone thought I was crazy .

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[SamSam]

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear.
You quoted,

It's mostly the last part that obfuscates, but the quoted facts that catch sizes have declined since the 1950's, without any other context, is likely a misrepresentation of what is causing the decline.

I know there is no mention of cause, other than the last line, and you are just posting an article of fact. I'm not trying to impune you or your reputation or even discredit the fact. I'm just pointing out that without understanding the complete picture, in the context of a discussion about anthropogenic climate change, the stated fact sounds like it is meant to accuse over-fishing of the decline in commercial catches.
Just the fact that catch sizes have shrunk over the last 70 years isn't evidence of any cause. That's what I'm saying.

Obviously something is causing that decline, but for the author of this statement to make it, without further explanation, is misleading. It might be true that over-fished World fisheries are the cause of the reduced catches, I believe that is happening, but if I didn't, that statement is no arguement to sway me. I do know that fishing has declined since the 1950s and a world wide effort to regulate fishing to prevent over-fishing, has also been going on.

So, if those regulations have been successful at all, it stands to reason that the catch sizes have gone down, at least in part, because of the success of those regulations.

You see, if the world's governments were to impose a complete moratorium on commercial fishing, to preserve the world's fisheries, the author could truthfully point out that, 'currently, the world's commercial catch size has dropped so dramatically, that this year, no fish were caught.' It would be truth, but in the context in which it was presented, it is alarming, rather than hopeful.

I hope you, SamSam, don't think I am trying to call you a liar. I am not. I have radd a number of your posts and agm fully impressed. I'm merely pointing out, how a statement like the one you quoted, can be misleading. It might be true, but it is not a good logical syllogism.

-Will (Dragonfly)

Well, the article is by a journalist at a newspaper, so he can't be expected to know the answers. He's mainly trying to assemble the facts in a readable order.

When you read the article........you probably noticed further down the statement
"Over-fishing and unregulated fishing, along with climate change, are the main threats to global fish stocks, says Associate Professor Quentin Hanichat of the University of Wollongong.

Ocean acidification, increases in water temperature, the oxygenation of the water and the degradation of habitats (such as in the Great Barrier Reef) are all factors, says Hanich, who leads the Fisheries Governance Research Program at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security."

You probably noticed when you read the article.........that just above the paragraph I copy-pasted was a paragraph that said "A study in the journal Nature, by the Sea Around Us initiative,suggested the FAO had underestimated the "peak" global fish catch from the world's oceans. The figure was actually 130 million tonnes, it contended, not 86 million tonnes (in 1996)." Plugged into the FAO's graph in question, you can see that instead of the rosy picture of a steady plateau of regulated, sustainable catch the FAO paints, you get a picture of drastic reduction of capture fish tonnage.

The author didn't post links but did post sources occassionally, looking up 'Nature' magazine and plugging in 'Sea Around Us', you get to here,
Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining

Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining | Nature Communications https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10244

In their abstract they state;

"Fisheries data assembled by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggest that global marine fisheries catches increased to 86 million tonnes in 1996, then slightly declined. Here, using a decade-long multinational ‘catch reconstruction’ project covering the Exclusive Economic Zones of the world’s maritime countries and the High Seas from 1950 to 2010, and accounting for all fisheries, we identify catch trajectories differing considerably from the national data submitted to the FAO."

In their introduction they state;

"This data set, (FAO) however, may not only underestimate artisanal (that is, small scale, commercial) and subsistence fisheries10, but also generally omit the catch of recreational fisheries, discarded bycatch12 and illegal and otherwise unreported catch, even when some estimates are available13. Thus, except for a few obvious cases of over-reporting14, the landings data updated and disseminated annually by the FAO on behalf of member countries may considerably underestimate actual fisheries catch. While this underestimation is widely known among many fisheries scientists working with FAO catch data, and is freely acknowledged by FAO, its global magnitude has not been explicitly presented until now."

If you look at the historical red snapper catches in the small, heavily managed area of the Gulf of Mexico, you see recreational catches usually exceeded commercial catches. It's stated in the paragraph above, the FAO reports generally don't even count the recreational fisheries.

History of Management of Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/history-management-gulf-mexico-red-snapper

Now, I can see where for the most part recreational catches might not amount to much in relation to global fisheries, but there is also no mention of the more recent practice of unregulated fishing boats transferring their illegal fish catches at sea to large factory freezer ships who then register those catches as legal.

As Yobarnacle uses debatable FAO reports to bolster his claim worldwide fish stocks are plentiful, zeroing in on heavily regulated with good enforcement fisheries as examples, completely ignoring realities in his 'only good news counts' mentality, he also claims
"Regulations and politics adversely affect fish production.
It's not a lack of fish, but an over abundance of interference."

You agreed with that, I think I asked you why.

 

[Yobarnacle]

And, I was eating bait squid cooked on the boat's burger grill before anyone had heard of calamari . Everyone thought I was crazy .

-Will (Dragonfly)

We always brought lunch with us. The galley food sold on the head boat, was expensive.
One year, I de-boned barbecued chicken, placed in a tupperware, so I could eat it with a fork, rather than my bait and fish smelly fingers.
One of the deckhands was reloading the bait bins at each station while we moved a few miles to a fresh spot. I was eating my lunch.
He complained. "You aren't supposed to eat that!"
Well, he had cause. The chicken speared on my fork looked exactly like cut bait!
Sushi, anyone?

 

[SamSam]

Oh wait, I might have figured it out.

"You posted a ways back, fish aren't bein caught like they were in 1950s inferring scarcity.

Will You pointed out, they didn't have to contend with a lot of politics and regulations in the 50s."

I can't quite figure out how to explain that thinking except by example.
“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the cases,”

 

[A II]

. . . .

. . . .

Looks like the guy eats an unhealthy diet, some additions to the fish, I'll guess.

 

[SamSam]

If Climate Change is going to be a bad thing, which I doubt, what can you do about it? Nothing!
The silly notion that the less than five percent of atmospheric CO2 contributed by humans, somehow, overides all the other climate factors and is solely responsible for Climate Change, is STUPID!

Even if you were right, and that isn't even possible, you can't even stop humans from producing CO2 either!
Stop worrying about things you can't control.
Consider how to adapt!
Humans are excellent at adapting.

Of course your REAL agenda is political. We won't let you succeed at that!

It's something how all these type articles layout Yobarnacles game plan, many times word for word. I have to say though I might be with him on this doomism stuff, not for the reasons he puts out, but for the example he is of how humans function. The bright side is in a decade or so a goodly number of us old ***** will be gone, along with a large portion of stunted thinking and paranoid, nationalistic ways. The world is an amazing place and can continue to be an amazing place, I wonder if there's enough time.

What I posted here is only a small part of the whole article, the link will take a person there if they care to do so.

Why 'doomism' is part of the latest frontier in the climate wars

Doomism, argues the internationally renowned climate scientist, is part of the latest frontier in the climate wars - a new tool being exploited by those resisting change in the way the world does business.

It sits alongside what he calls “soft denialism” (climate change is happening but it's OK, we can adapt) and “deflection” (sowing division by making it all about individual lifestyle choices). Such tactics, he says, are in some ways “even more pernicious” than the old arguments flatly rejecting human-induced climate change.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...tier-in-the-climate-wars-20191018-p531y7.html

 

[Yobarnacle]

Looks like the guy eats an unhealthy diet, some additions to the fish, I'll guess.

Maybe he is one of that retro breed that hates modern technology and pulls in Menhaden purse seines by hand!

 

[Yobarnacle]

"It's something how all these type articles layout Yobarnacles game plan, many times word for word. I have to say though I might be with him on this doomism stuff, not for the reasons he puts out,"

You might consider listening to what people say, accept it as sincere, and forget trying to analyze what it really means. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. No need to look beyond that.

 

[Will Gilmore]

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the cases,

Something like that, yes.

We learned about a case in my Statistics class, I think written about in the book Freakanomics, where a research study into Alzheimer's concluded that cigarette smoking helped prevent the disease.
After looking at thousands and thousands of cases, one commonality that stood out was, among the surveyed Alzheimer's patients, smokers were significantly under represented when compared to the demographic of the general population.

Conclusion, smokers didn't get Alzheimer's, therefore smoking contributed to a patient's resistance to the disease. Really: smokers died of cancer before they were within the typical age bracket for Alzheimer's.

Statistics as a formal branch of mathematics is actually pretty young.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Yobarnacle]

It is highly dependent how you organize the analysis. For decades the government considered pot a gateway drug to heroin addiction, because every heroin addict first tried pot.
That is called junk statistics. I am not suggesting anyone consider drug use okay. I never tried even pot.

The point is, the heroin addicts ALSO everyone tried, beer, milk, chewing gum, and a myriad other consumables before becoming addicted. Pot had no unique causal opportunity.

On the other hand, if everyone who tried pot, eventually became a heroin addict, that would be a significant statistic.

Politicized science is overripe (rotten) with junk statistics.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Climate change forces farmers to pick low yields or instability

As water shortages and higher temperatures drive down crop yields in regions that depend heavily on seasonal snow, the choice to use more drought-tolerant crop varieties comes at a cost.

The team found that higher water stress and temperatures led to lower crop yield, as anticipated. However, the models show that year-to-year variability in expected crop yields goes down because the difference between the best and worst case yields is reduced. While this is not a positive result, year-to-year fluctuations in crop yield revenue are strongly important in how crop insurance programs balance revenue fluctuations.

The team then used its model to explore the potential of new drought-tolerant crop varieties, which are expected to improve annual yields under climate change. The results showed that although those varieties could significantly improve the average yield, farmers could also experience much higher revenue volatility from crop production.

Typical and best-case annual yields are much higher. But climate change still is likely to cause severe droughts where current water management simply cannot provide enough water, and there are severe worst-case crop failures.


The paper “Water Rights Shape Crop Yield and Revenue Volatility Tradeoff for Adaptation in Snow Dependent Systems,” was published in Nature Communications.

 

[SamSam]

"It's something how all these type articles layout Yobarnacles game plan, many times word for word. I have to say though I might be with him on this doomism stuff, not for the reasons he puts out,"

You might consider listening to what people say, accept it as sincere, and forget trying to analyze what it really means. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. No need to look beyond that.

Game plan was used in a general way, not to imply you have an actual plan. Others do have an actual plan, and I think you may unwittingly be a part of their plan.

I do consider what you say and I guess you are sincere. The problem is, you are usually wrong, you avoid answering and you meander and rant so much, I just don't pay much attention to you anymore.

 

[Yobarnacle]

Game plan was used in a general way, not to imply you have an actual plan. Others do have an actual plan, and I think you may unwittingly be a part of their plan.

I do consider what you say and I guess you are sincere. The problem is, you are usually wrong, you avoid answering and you meander and rant so much, I just don't pay much attention to you anymore.

You don't? Is that a resolution beginning today? Shall I post the numbers of your recent posts where you angrily "ignored" me? ROFLMAO!

And you only guess I'm sincere? Pretty accurate guesswork, then!

I avoid answering questions with hooks, like "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"
You can freely offer baited questions, but I am not required to bite! Neither fish, sucker, nor sheep, I decide when and how I respond. I always respond, but just not in the way you planned I should! I do it MY way!

I am almost never wrong. I do make a mistake now and then, but the intent was never wrong.