NSF Press Release 14-028
![]()
Rising temperatures and changing wind patterns sure to affect predator-prey relationships, researchers say
Adelie penguins cross ice floes near a lead–or opening–in the sea ice at Cape Royds.
|
The Ross Sea, a major, biologically productive Antarctic ecosystem, “clearly will be extensively modified by future climate change” in the coming decades as rising temperatures and changing wind patterns create longer periods of ice-free open water, affecting the life cycles of both predators and prey, according to a paper published by researchers funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
To make their predictions, the researchers used information drawn from the Regional Ocean Modeling System, a computer model of sea-ice, ocean, atmosphere and ice-shelf interactions.
While conceding that “predicting future changes in ecosystems is challenging,” the researchers note in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, the changes predicted by the computer model have the potential to create “significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.”
The wind and temperature changes, the authors note, will affect the ecological balance at the base of the Antarctic food web–including changes in distributions of algae, shrimp-like krill and Antarctic silverfish–which, in turn, may be expected to cause disruptions in the upper portions of the food web, including penguins, seals and whales, which depend on those species for food.
A team of four researchers from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) at the College of William and Mary and the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., jointly authored the paper.
Walker O. Smith, Jr., a professor at VIMS and the lead author of the study, said: “The model suggests that the substantial changes in the physical setting of the Ross Sea will induce severe changes in the present food web, changes that are driven by global climate change. Without a doubt the Ross Sea 100 years from now will be a completely different system than we know today.”
The research was funded by the Polar Programs (awards: 0838948 and 0944254) and the Ocean Sciences divisions in NSF’s Geosciences Directorate.
The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) coordinates all U.S. research on the Southernmost Continent and in the Southern Ocean as well as providing the necessary logistical support for that science. NSF manages the USAP.
The researchers note that over the last 50 years the distribution and extent of Antarctic sea ice, or ice that floats on the ocean surface, have drastically changed. Among these changes are a documented decrease of sea ice in the Bellingshausen-Amundsen sector, but an increase of sea ice in the Ross Sea sector of Antarctica.
Observations show, they write, that “the duration of ice-free days on the Ross Sea continental shelf has decreased by over two months over the past three decades,” which may have had effects on the current balance of biological productivity and the roles of various creatures and microscopic plants in the ocean ecosystem.
But, they also note, “future projections of regional air temperature change, however, suggest that substantial warming will occur in the next century in the Ross Sea sector” while wind speeds are predicted to increase in some areas while decreasing in others.
“These changes are expected to reverse the sea-ice trends in the future; however the projected changes in heat content on the continental shelf and ecosystems dynamics that will occur as a result of such changes remain far from certain.”
The model, however, indicates that summer sea ice in the Ross Sea could decrease by more than half, or 56 percent, by 2050 and by more than three-quarters, or 78 percent, by 2100. At the same time, the summer mixing of shallow and deep waters in the region as a result of other changes is expected to decrease.
While increased open water would benefit diatoms, the preferred food source of many plant-eating predators such as krill, some krill species, such as crystal krill, prefer a habitat with more ice, which they use as a refuge from predators.
In turn, minke whales, Adelie and Emperor penguins and crabeater seals that feed on crystal krill would have less food available if the crystal krill population were reduced.
With less sea-ice cover, however, more humpback whales could enter the Ross Sea in the summer, increasing krill predation. Adelies, which prey on silverfish at the ice edge, would have to travel further from their nests and, as a result, be potentially more vulnerable to leopard seal predation.
While it is difficult to know specifically what changes the Ross Sea ecosystem will see, the model predictions, if they are accurate, suggest that they are likely to be far-reaching.
“Regardless of the exact nature of the alterations,” the researchers write, “substantial portions of the food web that depend on ice in their life cycles will be negatively impacted, leading to severe ecological disruptions.”
-NSF-
Adelie penguins cross ice floes near a lead–or opening–in the sea ice at Cape Royds.
Good lord! These models are becoming a modern day Nostradamus! And just as bad! Nostradamus couldn’t predict his next grey hair let alone anything else. Climate models can’t either. When will the thick sculls of climate scientists be breached????????
According to the alarmists, the growing ice around Antarctica is due to the fresh water coming from the land based ice that freezes easier than the salty sea water. Then how come we don’t see growing ice around Greenland?
A compter model you say… hmmm. Are we supposed to be impressed or fall about laughing… again? I am still numb in my sides from the last lot of computer model eco yodelling. Please… just give it a rest!
There’s only one prediction about the future I feel comfortable making and that is nearly all predictions about the future will be wrong.
“pat says:
March 12, 2014 at 6:51 pm
throwing carbon under the bus!
Zhu also referred to the fact that Australia, under a new conservative government, is trying to abolish its carbon tax, while a price on carbon has been blocked in the United States…”
pat thanks for the blurb,
I don’t know how many “climate refugees” there are in the world or might ever be (not counting the snowbirds in FL and in the south of Freedom/France) but I seriously wonder how many carbon refugees might be created by these addled policies. If the super comps running the models shut down due to starved carbon energy systems, would the modellers toss their berets in the air (ad hom) and party hearty? Vive la Freedom!
In this day and age, if you don’t believe in the theory of evolution you are considered an anti-science moron. Yet, one of the driving forces behind the theory is an ever changing environment that promotes biological adaptability and a strengthening of the survivors. Static environments are unhealthy for the long term survive ability of any species. But climate change scientists apparently believe that all environments should be completely static, for any prediction of a change, even over centuries, is considered a threat to all life forms, and that humans need to prevent these changes from occurring.
Ignoring the fact that humanity does not have the power to prevent climate from changing, (which it has been doing for billions of years), the belief that we should even try to hold climate static is against the theory of evolution.
Certainly the amount of ice in the Ross Sea will vary year to year, decade to decade, century to century and millennium to millennium. It always has and it always will. Evolution will continue. That is a good thing.
Yet it is deeply disturbing that so many people believe that environmental change must not be allowed to happen, and that it is the responsibility of humanity to make sure change does not take place, as if nature has been doing it wrong all these years. They believe that the Earth is incapable and needs our help. That is co-dependency. Humans should not be in a psychologically co-dependent relationship with life on Earth. We should not believe that life needs our intervention and guiding hand in order to thrive. Co-dependency is a mental disease, that unintentionally makes life worse for both sides of the relationship. ALWAYS! Without exception!
Modern environmental science is not only opposed to the Theory of Evolution, but is advocating a co-dependent relationship between humanity and the rest of life on the planet. There is no way such a relationship could end well.
RMF you may be on to something. Let’s pretend we all agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Then we can starve the super computers of their much needed energy to make their predictions. When the super duper computers breath their last breath and die we can all go back to being a normal Earth. She said, filled with cold medicine and a hot toddy.
There seems a disconnect in the aether.
The algorithms and computers and programmers at CERN (and Fermilab) seem a world apart from the ‘Computer Models’ of the IPCC (NCAR, East Anglia et al.) who seem enamored to Microsoft Excel [!] and nothing more !
A sad epitaph on on the tombstone of NCAR and East Anglia !
I.E. None of the employees can write a real program (language ? Ask them ! They will respond to be fluent in German, Italian, Russian and all North American and European and South American Languages ! Ask them, “What about FORTRAN ?, What about C ?” They will frown and walk away quickly and will glance back at you as they walk away not knowing the meaning of the words FORTRAN and C.)
Fred says:
March 12, 2014 at 6:31 pm
All these papers should be published with Amazon under science fiction then at least we can classify them as entertainment
*
No! I don’t want it to clutter up the good science fiction that’s there! Put those papers in the trash can where they belong. Or file them under “Fairy Tales” and give your kids a laugh.
Are these the same completely failed alarmist models? What the hell is the name of that thing? CHIMPS5? whatever. If it’s not CHIMPS maybe it was run by chimps I don’t know. Word to the penguins.
Chicken little would be impressed with this, others, not so much.
More modeling predictions yet again…..
How many predictions, er, eh, forecasts, have they gotten correct?
Perhaps they just need more data…..
Let’s help, follow the instructions closely.
@ur momisugly Jim Clarke – I don’t know why others don’t readily see the evolution ideology you have laid out. I’m guessing most here would agree. It’s ironic that AGWers refer to skeptics as anti-science and equate us with non-believers of evolution.
Jim Clarke says:
March 12, 2014 at 7:52 pm
*
Very good point! Sounds to me like that raises a good couple of questions to ask any believer-of-green-hype:
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. How does it happen?
Having to say “Yes” to the first will then result in them squirming (or maybe even thinking!) over the second.
Okay, I might be wrong over the “thinking” part, but it does have potential.
“the changes predicted by the computer model have the potential to create ‘significant but unpredictable impacts on the ocean’s most pristine ecosystem.'”
So something will happen. But we don’t know what. So whatever happens, we are right.
Pamela Gray, I like your comparison of the programs to Nostradamus. At least he had the decency to toss in the occasional fireball.
In a similar vein, The NSIDC explanation of warmer temperatures in the Arctic, whilst technically possible is insignificant in the overall context. “While the eastern half of the United States has dealt with a cold and snowy winter, temperatures in the Arctic have been distinctly higher than average. The warm conditions have led to a slower than average expansion of the winter ice cover. Less ice also contributes to higher air temperatures by allowing transfer of heat from the relatively warmer ocean. The annual maximum in sea ice extent is expected to occur sometime this month.” A small variation at the margins of the ice pack is insignificant compared to the continental scale influx of warmer air from the lower latitudes, drawn North to backfill the blowout of frigid Arctic air over Canada and USA.
Recommended reading for AWG-believers:
Huff Darrell, How to lie with statistics
Alp Öktem, Formation of scientific problems : towards a critical theory of scientific belief Dissertation Stockholm’s University 2003 ISBN 91-7235-038-5
It’s not possible to predict the future with any quality degree without correct, not corrected, data – nor is it possible for any scholar who forget Theories of Science to be anything but an amateur.
It’s incredible that so called scientists show lack of knowledge of almost everything from waterstructure and icedensity differences in water that freeze part of the year and melt other part of the year to all natural physic knowledge from angle to wobbling of Earth as well as all facts of Sun’s different phases and so on.
The only thing the author, the so called scientist, show is lack of basic knowledge in Computerscience as well as lack of statistic knowledge and lack of how to come up with a proper Thesis…. It’s not forbidden to show incompetence. But it’s not to be recommended either…..
Increasing temperatures will lead to changes in the garment industry.
Spherical penguins in a vacuum?
“in the coming decades as rising temperatures and changing wind patterns create longer periods of ice-free open water”
Ok, scrap the ice breakers, we don’t need them anymore (LOL)
Seriously, who will pull the plug on this crap factory.
How about falling temperatures for coming decades? Whenever I see NSF funded. I know.
[+emphasis]
So, umm… based on what the model suggests one can make assertions without a doubt?
Of course in a hundred many parts of the earth will probably be quite different, but then you don’t need a computer model to say that.
Last week it was fruitfly, this week its silverfish. We have a lot of species to study, one a week ain’t gonna cut it.
Jim Clarke Mar 12 7:52pm – re Evolution and changing climate. Excellent comment, thanks.