WSJ : Global Warming Causes La Nina

LIMA (Dow Jones)–Peru’s anchovy catch is set to fall by about 40% this year due to climate-change factors, said the Minister of Production.

Jorge Villasante told newspaper El Comercio on Wednesday that the 2010 anchovy catch was down to about 3 million metric tons, from a more normal 5 million tons.

Peru is the world’s largest producer and exporter of fishmeal, which is made mainly from anchovies and used primarily as animal feed.

Villasante blamed the sharp drop in catch levels on a temporary climate change phenomenon known as La Nina, which cools Peru’s fishing waters.

In the same report, Peru’s National Fishing Society said higher prices would somewhat compensate for the drop in production, with fishmeal export values expected to fall by only about 10% compared to last year.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to WSJ : Global Warming Causes La Nina

  1. Latitude says:

    At least they have shut up about coral reefs.
    The cold in Florida last year killed more corals, in Florida, than global warming ever did.

    Nevermind, I just realized that the cold is caused by global warming too……….

  2. suyts says:

    Ahh, more of that warming = cold garbage.

  3. klem says:

    A few years ago a drop in anchovy catch would have been blamed on over-fishing or no upward movement of deep ocean nutrients, or a number of other scientifically derived explanations. So are we to assume that all of the scientists who worked on these previous conclusions for decades were wrong, and it’s been simply climate change all along?

    Climate change is being used to explain everything. It’s so interesting how climatology has trumped all other forms of earth and natural science. No wonder no one believes them anymore.

  4. Green Sand says:

    Hi Steven, sorry for O/T but did you get chance to look at the HadCrut3 Nov anomaly?

  5. Mike Davis says:

    While all the factors need to be taken into account, natural long term regional weather patterns have been left out of the equation in favor of human activities and now they are still blaming human activities for natural weather events that have not changed for millions of years.

  6. Scott says:

    I don’t think the article meant anthropogenic climate change. La Nina is part of the climate, so when it’s present, it’s a temporary change in climate (which you could argue is weather). Go back 20 years ago, maybe even just 10, and this sort of confusion wouldn’t have happened.

    On the other hand, if they did indeed mean the La Nina is caused by ACC, then isn’t that admission of a strong negative feedback?


    • Paul H says:

      “I don’t think the article meant anthropogenic climate change”

      That was my first reaction as well Scott.

      I think it is an example of the sloppy use of the term “climate change” to explain away things (whether deliberate or not).

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    Climate is always changing regardless of whether humans are involved or not. Same with the number of anchovies.

    • Mike Davis says:

      There is a direct relation between regional weather and anchovy population because the food chain is affected by weather conditions outside of the optimum conditions and Anchovy population is a direct result of food availability. The difference between 1% survivability and 15% or more survivability from egg depends on food and temperature as well as predators.

  8. MattN says:

    No no no no NO! The experts at Real(lywrong) Climate have already gone on record saying that due to global warming, we will have more and stronger El Ninos.


    • Mike Davis says:

      Surrealclimate is always fantasizing about stuff like that! I have it on good authority (Hank Roberts and Tim Lambert) That they know really well how to Make Shit Up!

  9. NoMoreGore says:

    A world with less anchovies is a better place.


  10. Green Sand says:

    Steven, can’t find reply button so posting here. The numbers are for HadCrut3 not HadCrut3vgl. I understand that The Met normally quote HadCrut3 when pitching for the “hottest”:-

    The annual numbers are on the same page as the monthly numbers:-

    “The “annual data” used to make this diagram are available in this format.”

    Link on “annual data”. The format says “Column 2 is the best estimate anomaly. (For the current year this will be the average for the year so far. The latest month that has been processed will appear in the monthly files).

    The year to date fiqure shown as 0.518C, but the monthly ytd is 0.492C, but hey ho I suppose eventually they will make an announcement, just a bit surprised they are not normally slow at comming forward.

    Anyhow if 0.431C is correct the “hottest” will not be getting any closer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s