Borrowing a phrase from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze, Phytoplankton are now apparently in a “Death Spiral”. See Death spiral of the oceans and the original press release about an article in Nature from a PhD candidate at Dalhousie University, which started all this. I’m a bit skeptical of the method which they describe in the PR here:
A simple tool known as a Secchi disk as been used by scientists since 1899 to determine the transparency of the world’s oceans. The Secchi disk is a round disk, about the size of a dinner plate, marked with a black and white alternating pattern. It’s attached to a long string of rope which researchers slowly lower into the water. The depth at which the pattern is no longer visible is recorded and scientists use the data to determine the amount of algae present in the water.
Hmmm. A Secchi disk is a proxy, not a direct measurement of phytoplankton. It measures turbidity, which can be due to quite a number of factors, including but not limited to Phytoplankton. While they claim to also do chlorophyll measurements, the accuracy of a SD measurements made by thousands of observers is the central question.
From the literature: The Secchi disk transparency measurement is perhaps one of the oldest and simplest of all measurements. But there is grave danger of errors in such measurements where a water telescope is not utilized, as well as in the presence of water color and inorganic turbidity (source: Vollenweider and Kerekes, 1982). I’ll have more on this later. – Anthony
======================================================
Phytoplankton need cap and trade
By Steve Goddard
Yesterday, Joe Romm reported :
Nature Stunner: “Global warming blamed for 40% decline in the ocean’s phytoplankton”
“Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic.”
That sounds scary. Does it make any sense? Phytoplankton thrive everywhere on the planet from the Arctic to the tropics. One of the primary goals of this year’s Catlin expedition was to study the effect of increased CO2 on phytoplankton in the Arctic. They reported:
Uptake of CO2 by phytoplankton increases as ocean acidity increases
That sounds like good news for Joe! We also know that phytoplankton have been around for billions of years, surviving average global temperatures 10C higher and CO2 levels 20X higher than the present.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
Phytoplankton growth/reduction in the tropics correlates closely with ENSO. El Nñio causes populations to reduce, and La Niña causes the populations to increase.
During an El Niño year, warm waters from the Western Pacific Ocean spread out over much of the basin as upwelling subsides in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Upwelling brings cool, nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean up to the surface. So, when upwelling weakens, phytoplankton do not get enough nutrients to maintain their growth. As a result, surface waters turn into “marine deserts” with unusually low populations of phytoplankton and other tiny organisms. With less food, fish cannot survive in the surface water, which then also deprives seabirds of food.
During La Niña conditions, the opposite effect occurs as the easterly trade winds pick up and upwelling intensifies, bringing nutrients to the surface waters, which fuels phytoplankton growth. Sometimes, the growth can take place quickly, developing into what scientists call phytoplankton “blooms.”
The phytoplankton must be loving life now!
The author of this study (Boris Worm) also reported last year “if fishing continued at the same rate, all the world’s seafood stocks would collapse by 2048”
So we know that phytoplankton have survived for billions of years in a vast range of climates, temperatures and CO2 levels. Apparently they have become very sensitive of late – perhaps from all the estrogens being dumped in the oceans? Or maybe they have been watching too much Oprah?
The standard cure for hyperventilation is to increase your CO2 levels by putting a bag over your head.
@Jennifer Hubbard: The article by Alan Longhurst you cite was not peer reviewed. It was “Received 28 January 2007; accepted 4 February 2007.” In fact a version of it was rejected by Science. I am not saying Longhurst is wrong and Worm is correct – it is not my field. However, Worm’s article can be found here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5800/787
The abstract is free and you can register with Science for free and get articles since 1997 that are least one year old.
“The standard cure for hyperventilation is to increase your CO2 levels by putting a bag over your head.”
I cfan ftell ifts gphettngk vaurmrr, kann u heer mi fnow?
….a temperature change of 1C
leads to a 27% change in phytoplankton abundance
in the same direction.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1596/1953.full.pdf
“The researchers used NASA satellite data from 1998 to 2003 to show that phytoplankton amounts have increased globally by more than 4 percent.”;
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/chlorophyll.html
@julian flood
I know just enough about C3/C4 genotype to get me in trouble.
Hadn’t heard anyone say that C3/C4 photosynthetic pathway is something readily selectable. Interesting.
Are you saying it’s
1) something like gene induction via methylation (epigenetic) which can act very quickly like fungi can rapidly adapt their suite of enzymes to different substrates or
2) that higher taxonomic groups include species of both C3/C4 so it’s just a matter of selection favoring one substantially similar species over another as CO2 level changes or
3) that random mutation & selection over short time frames would be the means of adaptation
Malaga View says:
July 30, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Seriously….
Nearly 500,000 readings over 110 years.
Lets be generous: 50,000 readings per year.
Lets assume 5 readings in each test location per year.
So we have 10,000 test locations.
A Secchi disk is 8 inches in diameter.
A Secchi disk has an area of just over 50 square inches.
10,000 test locations of 50 square inches.
So we have 500,000 square inches of tested ocean
Which is equivalent to 0.000322 square kilometres…
And the oceans only cover 335,258,000 square kilometres.”
This should be right next to the dictionary definition of “Hitting a Nail on the Head”
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/plankton/
Is that diatom picture really a picture of a disorganized office drawer?
Not sure why this commentary is so strongly anti-science. In order to critique any published report, the first step is to read the article and the second step is to understand what is being reported. In my view, it’s arrogant and a bit silly to make fun of a paper that you haven’t read or understood, especially one based on so many years of extensive data. Another weak approach is to exagerate the author’s claims and to then claim that the author must be exagerating his results. The main claim is a decline of about 50% in phytoplankton abundance ove a period of about 100 years. I have published a good deal in this field and the paper seems quite credible to me. It would be interesting to read well considered criticism but I did not read much of that in the comments above.
To Mike (July 30, 2010 at 4:51 pm)
I take this issue seriously, but I my reaction is that I find it very hard to believe that global warming could in such a short time, with such a relatively small temperature increase, cause such a massive loss in phytoplankton. A
fter all, we were 1 to 2 degrees warmer in the Holocene optimum 8,000 years ago, and 2 to 3 degrees warmer in the last interglacial — did we almost run out of plankton then? We have lots of ocean cores using various tiny organisms as sea surface temperature proxies, and I don’t recall any of them discussing shortages of phytoplankton.
There is also the matter of internal inconsistencies. The Nature article suggests that among the areas with large declines are areas near the poles. Yet those areas wouldn’t have warm waters overlying cold waters, preventing nutrients coming to the surface, as you do see in El Nino years in the Eastern Pacific, and as you did back in warmer eras like the Cretaceous. The waters are all relatively cold and there is lots of storminess near the poles today.
The BBC article you linked may have the explanation, e.g., an alternative explanation. Here is the relevant passage:
…Carl-Gustaf Lundin, head of the marine programme at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), suggested there could be other factors involved – notably the huge expansion in open-ocean fishing that has taken place over the century.
“Logically you would expect that as fishing has gone up, the amount of zooplankton would have risen – and that should have led to a decline in phytoplankton,” he told BBC News.
“So there’s something about fishing that hasn’t been factored into this analysis.”…
This explanation makes sense to me. Take away fish, you get more zooplankton. That mean more grazing on phytoplankton. The big increase in open ocean fishing has taken place in many sub-polar areas, where you the Nature article’s explanation, that there would be warm water overlaying nutrient rich cooler waters, doesn’t make sense.
So it seems to me that are most likely to have here another knock-off effect of overfishing. For those who don’t think that humans have overfished, accelerating in the last 50 years, I suggest reading the book “Cod” for starters.
—
This is all over Secchi disk transparency measurement changes? Are you guys kidding me?
A PhD candidate runs nothing but Secchi disk transparency measurements without dropping a Niskin bottle to the same depths in the same locations to take water samples and actually count the friggin’ plankton while identifying the species, the water temperatures, and the chemical characteristics of the ambient liquid so as to say whether or not there really is any kind of change in phytoplankton populations?
That this got published in Nature – much less got past this schmuck’s supervising instructors – is absolutely astonishing. [snip – off color ~mod]
—
BillD
So you believe the claimed decline in phytoplankton is due to “global warming?”
I’m doing my part to save the phytoplankton by consuming more krill oil supplements to get my recommended daily allowance of Omega-3 fatty acids. Since krill feed on phytoplankton, the massive harvesting of Antarctic krill to make Omega-3 fatty-acid oil supplements should have a positive net impact on phytoplankton populations. The best thing about krill oil (aside from saving the phytoplankton) is that it doesn’t leave a “fishy” after taste in my mouth like fish oil pills often do.
I have a recommendation. We should designate all “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Events” by CAX, where “X” is used in its algebraic sense–i.e., to represent an unknown. That way, (a) the advocates of global warming won’t have to spend time thinking up reasons why AGW morphed into CAGW morphed into CACC, and (b) all future man-made wickedness is covered–e.g., “X” could stand for the Phytoplankton death spiral, or for Mexican northern migration, or for coral reef loss, or for the oceans becoming less basic (ocean acidification), etc.
Julian Flood says:
July 30, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Incidentally, phyos have diatoms as their most ferocious competitor
?
Last time I looked, diatoms were also phytoplankton. (As are foraminiferans, dinoflagellates, microflagellates, radiolarians etc…)
BillD says:
July 30, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Not sure why this commentary is so strongly anti-science.
What we are against is thinly disguised political opportunism lying behind somewhat dubious science. I haven’t read the paper yet (no time) but OK lets say Secci disc measured turbidity has declined over a few decades. The most probable explanation is variation in ocean circulation – we all know that oceans exhibit multidecadal oscillations (PDO, AMO, SO etc…) resulting in cyclical changes in processes such as upwelling which strongly impact on surface plankton concentrations. So for a genuine politically disinterested scientist, the automatic assumption from this small turbidity decrease is that it is due to oceanic changes. But of course the genuine politically disinterested scientist is an endangered species, displaced by the Boris Worm type scientist who are presumably attracted to science via political activism by the smell of political influence.
At that site, we find:
And just a general remark: We are sick and tired of ‘studies’ being trumpeted around the media, where the original is behind a paywall not to be checked. I have taken the effort to extract half a dozen of these trash pieces and in every case I found just that: scientific trash. The correct default position is the null hypothesis, so if the paper has legs, it is incumbent on you to extract the evidence and present it to us. When there is an industry worth billions that exists just to finance one-sided ‘research’, the sane and proper thing to do is to assume that all ‘research’ emanating from those places is rubbish, until proven otherwise.
As for your remark: “These reporters do not just read press releases. They talk to the researchers and other scientists in the field.” You may have your secret weapon: more of that and we’ll all die laughing.
Julian, that theory is extremely interesting. I have taken the liberty of repeating it here:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/alternative-cause-global-warming
@John says: July 30, 2010 at 7:41 pm
John,
You raise some good points. My comments were more directed at the people who talk about “knuckle headed scientists.” I should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. Although the authors do discuss alternative explanations no one should take this paper as the final word. Of course more work needs to be done. But neither should it be dismissed out of hand as many here are want to do.
As to the point you raise about past warmer periods, the concern about AGW is not that life cannot flourish at higher or lower global mean temperatures, but that the rate of change is so fast ecological systems we depend upon will suffer. In a thousand years maybe the plankton will come back. But many people depend on fish and shell fish as a part of their diets now. “Marine sources provide about 20% of the animal protein eaten by humans. Another 5% is provided indirectly via livestock fed with fish. 60% of fish consumption is by the developing world.” [http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/fisheries/fisheries.html]
As to the polar areas, there is still a temperature gradient as you go down. If the water on the top becomes warmer it is slower to sink and push water from the bottom up. If the oceans warmed uniformly with respect to depth there would not be an issue. Now I would guess that the amount of plankton in the arctic is less than in warmer regions, but the paper refers to the rate of change.
I do not doubt we can adapt to climate change. But it is likely to costly and for some deadly. I remember reading about Keynes warming that we should forgive Germany’s obligation to pay WWI reparations. He feared that pressing Germany to pay would lead to a collapse and another war. He was ignored. After all Germany was bad and owed us the money. We should have listened. Now we should listen to what the scientists are trying to tell us. The cost of climate change is very likely to exceed the cost of switching to alternative energy sources – something we will have to do sooner or later anyway.
In my view, it appears that the standard being used for this type of story is to sound the bell of alarm on the slightest possibility that someone may have found a real case of anthropogenic damage to the planet. I believe this continual cry of “Wolf!-Wolf!-Wolf!” can only damage their credibility and potentially cause a real call to danger to be ignored.
At the very least, I think all such articles should include a full analysis of why there might not be any real cause for alarm.
@Rich Matarese says: July 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm “A PhD candidate runs nothing but Secchi disk transparency measurements without dropping a Niskin bottle to the same depths in the same locations to take water samples and actually count the friggin’ plankton while identifying the species, the water temperatures, and the chemical characteristics of the ambient liquid so as to say whether or not there really is any kind of change in phytoplankton populations?”
If you read the paper you would see that they did do these sort of things to gauge current Secchi disk measurements. They also made comparisons with satellite measurements. It is your own bias that leads to assume you know what they should have done and that they did not do it without reading the paper. Confront your inner biases. Not every research paper is sound (agreed with some of the criticisms of the paper on Mexican immigration although not with demonizing the authors). This work will need to be verified by others. But it is serious.
“Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic.”
Of course as Steven Goddard pointed out, if phytoplankton is Cambrian, then they have survived quite a few mass extinctions on the earth already (end of Permian, end of Cretaceous, two in the Cenozoic, for example). And the diatom alone has managed to radiate into 250,000 species during that time. So this statement may go into the pile where they put the prediction that “snow would be a thing of the past.”
But it’s not just their survival that commands respect – these single-celled creatures are pulling off a marvelous feat called biomineralization.
“The term biomineral refers not only to a mineral produced by organisms, but also to the fact that almost all of these mineralized products are composite materials comprised of both mineral and organic components. Furthermore, having formed under controlled conditions, biomineral phases often have properties such as shape, size, crystallinity, isotopic and trace element compositions quite unlike its inorganically formed counterpart. The term ‘biomineral’ reflects all of this complexity.
Figure 1 illustrates this by comparing part of a single calcite crystal formed by an echinoderm to synthetic single crystals of calcite. [page 5]
Not bad for a single cell to direct the process of crystallization into such elaborate forms and compositions.
“The future of nanotechnology will be guided by the knowledge gained from discovering how different life forms control the progression of biomineralization, the process by which bones, teeth and shells are formed.” Dr. Gary Greenburg
Why is this so surprising? SST’s have increased, and as Sea water is stratified via temperature, the warm layer of water has thickened, leaving Phytoplankton, which float at set levels, further away from the cold, nutrient bearing layer of water, meaning less nutrients thus less population.
Ron,
My apologies for the bad link. Here is the abstract which is free:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html
I agree with you that the press often mangles science articles. They tend to treat it like crime reporting. But there are good source out there like Science News, Scientific American and, although you won’t agree, the NYT science section. Even so the intelligent reader needs to be aware that no one study is likely to be definitive. But, unlike debates of political values or religious beliefs, scientific debates tend to be settled over time. It can be hard to distinguish between real debates like why the dinos went extinct and pseudo debates like creationism. There is much to be learned and debated in climate science. But a few things have solidified: the world is warming largely due to our GHG emissions; this is going to have an array of effects over the coming decades most of which will be unpleasant for us. Many economists think we can stiff away from fossil fuels without excessive economic losses; here there is far less certainty of course. Maybe we won’t be able to do it. I think we owe to future generations to try.
The author of this study (Boris Worm) also reported last year “if fishing continued at the same rate, all the world’s seafood stocks would collapse by 2048”
2048? Oh, I think he means the Himalayan Glacier Trout.