The prize for “failing to read a paper but going ahead and spouting a complete load of irrelevance based on ignorance resulting from failing to read a paper” award (a bit long?) Â goes to……..drumroll………..Anthony crybaby Watts. Put headgear on now.
In his latest post about a new University of British Columbia paper published in  Nature Climate Change, Watts gave this appraisal of the paper. Actually before I show that, I have to wonder why Anthony didn’t provide a link or DOI? I seem to recall him bitching about media stories not supplying proper links or DOI’s for the papers they are reporting on. Here it is. Anyway, this is Anthony’s basic blurb about what the paper is about.
I have highlighted the important bit.  Of course Anthony, in his myopic style saw the word “warmer” and didn’t read any further. So, he then goes onto rubbish it because it was based on modelling and decides to offer up some real science to rebut it. The paper he chose was The effect of temperature and fish size on growth, feed intake, food conversion efficiency and stomach evacuation rate of Atlantic salmon post-smolts written by Handeland et al and appearing in the journal Aquaculture. Anthony then pulls this graph from the paper.
There’s no doubting it. Warmer water produces faster growth rates in Atlantic Salmon smolts in a controlled tank experiment. Â To put the icing on the cake he then offers the conclusion from the paper.
In conclusion, the present study shows ontogenetic variation in optimum temperature for growth in juvenile Atlantic salmon smolts, with increased temperature optimum for growth and decreased temperature for feed conversion efficiency as the fish grow bigger.
Temperature tolerance increases with size, but Atlantic salmon smolts are eurythermal (Able to tolerate a wide range of temperatures.) in the size range investigated.
Now, in Anthony’s myopic smugness he predicts a bit of feedback about the difference between tank experiments and the ocean.
So there you have it, case closed. He is disputing the claim that when there is less oxygen available and when the water is warm that fish growth will be stunted. Anthony then goes into a big spiel about oxygen saturation points none of which is in dispute but there’s one little…but very important thing. Let’s take a look at the methodology section of the tank study Anthony is using for his argument. It says,
 Five days after arrival at HIB, the freshwater temperature was gradually altered from ambient to temperature regimes (mean±SE) referred to as: 6 (±0.2),10 (±0.1),14 (±0.3) and 18 (±0.1) °C over a period of 1 week. After this acclimation period, temperature was kept constant during the rest of the experiment. Two weeks later (7 October), the water in all tanks was changed from fresh water to seawater of identical temperature. Full salinity (33‰) was reached within 60 min. Water flow was kept between 15 and 20 L min− 1 in the low temperature tanks (6 and 10 °C) and between 25 and 30 L min−1 in the high temperature tanks (14 and 18 °C). Oxygen saturation in the outlet water was measured regularly and was kept above 80% during the experiment.
Oooooooh. That’s awkward. Anthony you stupid prick, what the fuck is up with that? Were you not paying attention when you read the methods section? Perhaps it was all a bit complicated so you decided to skip it? Whatever your reason, I thank you for demonstrating, yet again, that you are a moron. The oxygen levels were the same across treatments so of course the salmon grew quicker in warm water. They were able to metabolise, with the help of all that OXYGEN, their food more efficiently. Idiot.
Here is the link to the salmon paper.
There’s a saying that Tony should take heed of – better to keep quiet and look a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
Fish ‘don’t have a temperature issue’? Tony has obviously never kept fish. Some fish can thrive with a wider range of temperatures than others, but anyone who has kept fish in a tank – and presumably anyone who knows anything about fish, knows that most species are very intolerant of temperatures outside their normal range. And with some fish that range is very, very narrow.
That’s leaving aside the point of the paper – which as you say, ties it to oxygen in the water.
There’s another report I read about recently where fish might move south down the east coast of Australia, chasing their preferred water temperature. Here it is – the 2012 CSIRO marine report discusses fish likely to move south. They also found that some tropical fish may have greater tolerance for higher temperatures than previously thought.
It’s interesting the relationship between oxygen and water temperature. I wonder if that is the reason for some species being more temperature tolerant than others? Something to do with different physiology and ability to get oxygen from the water.
This is only anecdotal, but I worked for a few years in Tassie and spent a bit of time recreational fishing in the north. I was near the townof Penguin one day and caught a yellowfin bream, Acanthpagrus australis. I didn’t think anything of it having come from Queensland and caught them all the time. An old bloke nearby said they never used to see them until about 10 years ago and while rare, they do get caught occasionally. Apparently their historical range is only as far south Eastern Victoria. After telling a few people back in Hobart about catching this fish, others told me they had caught bream or knew someone who caught bream. One bloke claimed his brother had caught one as far south as Swansea. Now, maybe they’ve always been there and noone’s bothered to do some proper research to find the true extent of their range, or maybe a shift of just half a degree in average water temperature is enough to see them migrate south form the mainland. Who knows. Given the range extensions of other marine species like sea urchins around Tassie I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a range extension.
________________________________
Here’s another article - this time closer to Tony’s home – about all the fish dying in the USA as the water got too hot for them this summer.
Did not know that it was so bad
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-02/barrier-reef-coral-cover-halved-report/4290230
Good luck getting cando to maintain the measures that were put in place with farm auditing of chemical use. I’m pretty sure the conservative candidates up there were all saying it was going to go if they got in. I was working in DEEDI up there at the time and all the cane and banana farmers had the shits on big time. Especially the canegrowers. They use some funky chemicals andthe banana growers put something close to 400kg of nitrogen per acre into bananas. I have a friend who is a senior reef protection officer in Cairns and he’s seen most of his budget disappear. The reef is fucked. Get out and see it while you can.
________________________________
I will have to write another letter
http://www.queenslandlabor.org/2012/06/17/newman-cuts-vital-reef-funding/
What a lot of people don’t realise John is that Agforce and DERM and what was DEEDI and is now DAFF produce glossy brochures like this one http://www.agforceqld.org.au/index.php?tgtPage=industry&page_id=270 and it all looks really good. What it boils down to is canegrowers and graziers if they have certain size properties have to go through an auditing system, develop a plan and then apply for grants to come from Reef Rescue. What it doesn’t tell you,particularly in relation to cane farmers is that the 70Ha they have must be contiguous. So, if Joe Bloggs has two farms, each one 69Ha he doesn’t have to be audited for chemical use. Also,he must draw at least 50% of his income directly from farming cane. It is not uncommon for many large canefarmers to invest heavily in property and the share market and restructure their interests through familymemebers to actually derive more income from those sources. Also, I know for fact that a number of canefarmers who were on or just over that 70Ha area turned over land to papaya or banana growing. The other thing too is the Australian Banana Growers Council successfully had banana growers excluded from the plan so they can continue to pour hundreds of kilograms each of Nitrogen and Phosphorous into the rivers. Finally, DERM, who do most of the reefwork is a managerial basketcase and highly inefficient. A large proportion of the reef protection officers are on temporary contracts and we both know what’s happening there. The reef is fucked.
________________________________
Thanks Mike , have to get everything down to 250 words, I will work on it for a week and know that it will be printed in at least two papers.The sunshine coast daily gives preference to short irrelevant letters so cannot count on them, now and then they do surprise.
might not use the word fucked but wish I could
I would frame the statements as questions.
Campbell has already decided the future?
The LNP wants to strike the right balance maintaining
the rights of owners of coastal land and, where a
planning permit is granted, ensuring that suitable and
sustainable private development can occur.
The Queensland Coastal Plan is yet another
State Planning Policy (SPP) that undermines the
South East Queensland Regional Plan, and which
could also lead to up to five years of uncertainty in
Government mapped hazard zones.
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.
Pingback: Another Week of GW News, August 7, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered