Just because a little of something may be good doesn't mean that a whole lot would be better!

Ocean temperatures, that is.

The temperature oscillations are smaller in scale and in scope than those forecasted by global warmiing researchers. Also, they oscillate back and forth, which in itself may have some as yet unknown benefit to salmon populations. Global warming is predicted to be pretty much in one direction.

It's an interesting article. Reminds me of Frank Amatos latest editorial in STS. Frank proclaims nutrient supplementation to be the silver bullet in recovery of northwest salmon populations. The NOAA article suggests that it could help in some situations but probably wouldn't be effective in all streams. I wish the article said what the other nutrient sources were in the Bristol Bay lakes.

Amato's editorial suggests using raw nutrient additions to streams. Some kind of chemical drip feeder, I imagine. I think that this idea has promise, and the NOAA article seems to agree. My only worry would be that managers could use raw nutrient inputs as a substitute for increased escapement, rather than as a short-term aid.