Deoxygenation due to climate change threatens marine life
From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
BOULDER — A reduction in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans due to climate change is already discernible in some parts of the world and should be evident across large regions of the oceans between 2030 and 2040, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Scientists know that a warming climate can be expected to gradually sap oceans of oxygen, leaving fish, crabs, squid, sea stars, and other marine life struggling to breathe. But it’s been difficult to determine whether this anticipated oxygen drain is already having a noticeable impact.
“Loss of oxygen in the ocean is one of the serious side effects of a warming atmosphere, and a major threat to marine life,” said NCAR scientist Matthew Long, lead author of the study. “Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it’s been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change. This new study tells us when we can expect the impact from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability.”
The study is published in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Cutting through the natural variability
The entire ocean–from the depths to the shallows–gets its oxygen supply from the surface, either directly from the atmosphere or from phytoplankton, which release oxygen into the water through photosynthesis.
Warming surface waters, however, absorb less oxygen. And in a double whammy, the oxygen that is absorbed has a more difficult time traveling deeper into the ocean. That’s because as water heats up, it expands, becoming lighter than the water below it and less likely to sink.
Thanks to natural warming and cooling, oxygen concentrations at the sea surface are constantly changing–and those changes can linger for years or even decades deeper in the ocean.
For example, an exceptionally cold winter in the North Pacific would allow the ocean surface to soak up a large amount of oxygen. Thanks to the natural circulation pattern, that oxygen would then be carried deeper into the ocean interior, where it might still be detectable years later as it travels along its flow path. On the flip side, unusually hot weather could lead to natural “dead zones” in the ocean, where fish and other marine life cannot survive.
To cut through this natural variability and investigate the impact of climate change, the research team–including Curtis Deutsch of the University of Washington and Taka Ito of Georgia Tech–relied on the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The scientists used output from a project that ran the model more than two dozen times for the years 1920 to 2100 on the Yellowstone supercomputer, which is operated by NCAR. Each individual run was started with miniscule variations in air temperature. As the model runs progressed, those tiny differences grew and expanded, producing a set of climate simulations useful for studying questions about variability and change.
Using the simulations to study dissolved oxygen gave the researchers guidance on how much concentrations may have varied naturally in the past. With this information, they could determine when ocean deoxygenation due to climate change is likely to become more severe than at any point in the modeled historic range.
The research team found that deoxygenation caused by climate change could already be detected in the southern Indian Ocean and parts of the eastern tropical Pacific and Atlantic basins. They also determined that more widespread detection of deoxygenation caused by climate change would be possible between 2030 and 2040. However, in some parts of the ocean, including areas off the east coasts of Africa, Australia, and Southeast Asia, deoxygenation caused by climate change was not evident even by 2100.
Picking out a global pattern
The researchers also created a visual way to distinguish between deoxygenation caused by natural processes and deoxygenation caused by climate change.
Using the same model dataset, the scientists created maps of oxygen levels in the ocean, showing which waters were oxygen-rich at the same time that others were oxygen-poor. They found they could distinguish between oxygenation patterns caused by natural weather phenomena and the pattern caused by climate change.
The pattern caused by climate change also became evident in the model runs around 2030, adding confidence to the conclusion that widespread deoxygenation due to climate change will become detectable around that time.
The maps could also be useful resources for deciding where to place instruments to monitor ocean oxygen levels in the future to get the best picture of climate change impacts. Currently ocean oxygen measurements are relatively sparse.
“We need comprehensive and sustained observations of what’s going on in the ocean to compare with what we’re learning from our models and to understand the full impact of a changing climate,” Long said.
###
I read with interest ’til I got to the part where they said they used a model……. all garbage after that.
+1
I usually read to where it says climate change and if I can’t tell if it’s climate change or phony climate change I stop there. Am I missing anything ?
SO they have developed cherry trees that thrive in the ocean, in space, and everywhere else… And the cherries aren’t edible for 20 years…
I am shocked I tell you, simply shocked…
Is it just me or is the desperation so visible that nothing is off the table, especially something the average person is incapable of disproving or proving… the “just take our word for it” meme…
An increase of 0.001C is enough to noticeably change how much O2 the oceans can absorb?
Really?
Beyond parody.
I had a go anyway – see comment below!!
El Nina? Well, it’d be funny if it weren’t so plausible. But, I’ll give an A for effort.
Whoops, you have probably discerned that I am not Portuguese.
In fact I’m not even sure if that is how to spell Portuguese.
There are limits to my expertuese.
Thanks for the “A for effort”.
We might as well have fun, whilst the world goes to hell in a handbasket. 🙂
It’s Spanish, not Portuguese.
Damn, it was a 50/50 guess. And I still screwed that up!! If we hadn’t defeated the Armada, then perhaps I’d know the difference. 🙂
MarkW,
“It’s Spanish, not Portuguese”, but he probably knows how to spell “Spanish”. Duh! 😛 (couldnt resist!)
And a heartfelt moment of silence for one of my favorite people ever- Victor Borge…who mentioned once seeing a “Portugoose and all of her little Portugoslings”. Having fun is the only way to stay sane in a world in which science has become psy-ince.
One mongoose, two mongeese.
Or is it mongooses.
Anyway, I digress. What were we actually talking about?
Yeah, El Nino. I thought that it was named by Portuguese fishermen.
I have a very shabby grasp of the details of colonization of the Americas, because I am an English ignoramus.
Although, I did once play Christopher Columbus in a play at school!! After that part, I lost interest.
EL Nino is off the western coast, which is Chile.
Unbelievable. This one will be easy to scrutinize. If the model used is one of the many versions that cannot model ENSO ocean dynamics, nuff said.
Well, if ENSO doesn’t occur in the models, then why do we not simply conclude that the models are correct.
I’d love to see the headlines.
“EL NINO A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION, SAY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
A team of international scientists specializing in computer climate modelling have shown that a regular El Nino/El Nina phenomenon does not occur.
Nor did it occur in the past. Nor will it occur at any time in the future.
“This certainly puzzled the heck out of us”, said one scruffy bearded guy in sneakers, “we have relied upon the output of these models to predict all sorts of real world events such as the on-coming global thermo-pocalypse, and clearly having trusted them so far, we can only therefore conclude that there is no El Nino, or El Nina. It would be inconsistent for us to only trust them when they predict the end of the world, but to ignore everything else which they do or don’t predict.”
Technicians working in the field have already formerly apologized for the failure of observational data to support the work of real climate scientists working with multi billion dollar computer models.
When the head of the ARGO ocean measurement project was asked why observations had perpetuated the El Nino myth for so long, he responded, “Yes, we’ll now have to go back over years of observations and make the necessary corrections. Obviously we will need to toss some floats and that should make most of the El Nino go away, If that doesn’t work, then we’ll just keep on digging”….etc”
(Contains satire.)
I once had a warmista tell me that not only do the models accurately reflect our current climate, but that nobody had any idea that El Ninos existed until they were predicted by models. Then scientists went looking for them and found them.
Yes, they are that delusional.
Yes, that’s also how they discovered clouds.
Except that they expected them to be cuboid and 220km across along both the north-south and east-west edge.
Later, observation did indeed show us that clouds exist, but that they are smaller and fluffy looking.
Relative to an earlier remark, the clue that El Nino / La Nina are Spanish is the fact that the middle letter “n” is supposed to have the superposed tilde (~). It produces what we might approximate in English as the “ny” dipthong. But in Portuguese, this is spelled with an “nh” (e.g., Senor vs. Senhor).
Thankyou.
Now, at that I need to do is to learn the entirety of the rest of both languages and my education will be complete!! 🙂
“We need comprehensive and sustained observations of what’s going on in the ocean to compare with what we’re learning from our models and to understand the full impact of a changing climate,” Long said.
Translation= We need more of other peoples money!
Queue up Dire Straits “Money for nothing”
I much prefer the unedited version. My ears aren’t hurt by words the way some snowflakes are.
If warmer oceans means less oxygen which means no fish, I guess those giant marine reptiles were all surviving on takeout from Captain-D’s?
Well back then there was as much as 35% O2 in the atmosphere which would compensate for the higher temperature.
…and the cause of the depletion of 02 since??
How do you “force” warmer ocean surface waters to “absorb” any of that additional O2 that was in the atmosphere back then?…you know….to compensate, if expanded, warmed water releases rather than absorbing?
“Deoxygenation” is just the newest buzzword meant to alarm the stupid, but is simply a naturally occurring physical process.
Thus the 12″ dragonflies. I would like to know where it all went, though.
Most of those giant marine reptiles were air breathers.
Never mind, I got your point on the second reading.
MarkW,
ALL of the giant marine reptiles were air breathers, unless they were dead. Even some of the fish, like lung fish, were air breathers.
Yet one more example of a ‘scientist’ who specializes in de novo extrapolations of speculative consequences of mechanisms in vacuo – without regard to concurrent competing mechanisms. An increment of temperature will slightly decrease the solubility of oxygen in water, but this is only a significant consideration when the water is saturated with oxygen. In the unsaturated state, a slight decrement to solubility is irrelevant since it does not trigger the de-solution of oxygen.
The competing mechanism of photosynthesis by phytoplankton is actually accelerated by a temperature increase. Thermodynamics dictates the acceleration of chemical reaction kinetics with temperature.
These two mechanisms oppose each other as temperatures change, stabilizing the availability of oxygen. The major cause of oxygen depletion in water then becomes the metabolism of oxygen by zooplankton and higher animals.
It looks like the authors could use a little more oxygen.
All models are safe in Boulder, it’s a modeling safe haven city.
Safely above the storm surge.
So…the earth is greening at a phenomenal rate and plankton are in a frenzy of growth both producing more oxygen in the atmosphere and in the ocean. Another compartmentalized study with models not being fed critical parameters.
Perhaps they’re aware of the fact that the atmospheric concentration of O2 is actually going down? Apparently that’s something that escaped you.
Atmospheric concentration of oxygen is 21%. Carbon dioxide, 0.04% up from 0.028% in 1850. The meaningfulness of how much the oxygen concentration is declining is infinitesimally small and of no relevance to life on the planet as we know it.
I did notice a bit of a pant in your breathing. Two things: a) They can’t get a temperature in the ocean they are happy with with thousands of Argo buoys, b) Ocean “acidification” is largely associated with influx of freshwater runoff near coastal areas, tropical storm rains in equatorial zones, plus the presence of natural acidic “smokers” in the sea floor so the readings (measuring technology is even poor) are all over the map literally. Why do you think they have a handle on ocean anoxia?
Look Phil, it’s okay for your guys to be wrong sometimes, even Einstein wasn’t perfect. How you find out is by not being their cheering section. You become a skeptic. Look it up, it’s an honorable position to take, not what you sociologists think it is. Oh- and they use scales on the graph like they do for methane (which is parts per billion total) or else it shows no discernible change. As an engineer, the appropriate units to use depends on the mass you are dealing with: we don’t measure coal or limestone production in nanograms. Oxygen is 20 percent of the atmosphere. If you use small eneough units you end up with wide fluctuations even during a day and a real measure is inundated in error of measurement. Were talking the ocean here!!
the atmospheric concentration of O2 is actually going down
=====================
yes, O2 concentrations have been dropping for tens and hundreds of millions of years. Giant flying insect no longer exist. They required 35% oxygen to survive. A similar argument likely also applies to dinosaurs.
The reason oxygen levels are dropping is limestone. As CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the oceans it ultimately gets converted into limestone which settles to the ocean bottom. For every carbon removed, two oxygen are removed. Eventually the oxygen will be depleted and life would be impossible.
Luckily however the earth has a molten iron core and plate tectonics. The energy from the core reduces limestone carried into the earth through subsidence, and using iron as a catalyst produces hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons float upwards to the surface and where they get trapped in rocks they are available for us to dig up as fossil fuels.
When we burn these fossil fuels the original CO2 that got trapped as limestone is released into the atmosphere. The plants consume the CO2, adding carbon to their structure to allow them to grow, and releasing the O2 back to the atmosphere that was so long ago lost.
So by burning fossil fuels we are actually returning the oxygen to the atmosphere that was so long ago lost, and helping plants restore the carbon that was also lost.
Fredberple, that fits my understanding, which is why I asked Phil to explain how O2 went down in the first place, long before we drove SUVs. (I wanted to see Phil follow the logic) However, O2 has continued to drop as CO2 rises.
Is this partially due to a lag in the greening? (If we held CO2 to 400 PPM, how long and how much would the biosphere continue to green?) Could that, in conjunction with human activities like burning the rain forests, and agricultural land run off be combining to inhibit the growth of O2. Not that we want more then we have, as fires tend to rage as O2 concentration rises.
Gary Pearse April 28, 2016 at 11:42 am
Look Phil, it’s okay for your guys to be wrong sometimes, even Einstein wasn’t perfect.
You claimed that oxygen was increasing in the atmosphere and the ocean, I pointed out that it is actually going down and gave data to support that. So you’re the one who’s wrong, deal with it.
David A April 28, 2016 at 10:24 pm
Fredberple, that fits my understanding, which is why I asked Phil to explain how O2 went down in the first place, long before we drove SUVs. (I wanted to see Phil follow the logic) However, O2 has continued to drop as CO2 rises.
Sedimentation mostly (carbonates, sulphates etc.), growth in biomass, particularly with the evolution of trees, also when pO2 got very high there is evidence of major forest fires which would also sequestrate O2 in the form of CO2. The most recent decline in O2 is due to combustion and the amounts concerned are consistent with the corresponding growth in CO2.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Mostly money.
Well, the oxygen part of your story does not make sense..
With money, you can buy the rest.
So if the ocean temperature changes from, say, 293 K to 294 K it’s the end of life as we know it? Or whatever. Doesn’t the ocean temperature naturally vary much more than that, depending on latitude and season and currents and other factors? How on Earth did marine life make it through all the climate changes that have always occurred naturally in the past?
You are clearly not a climate scientist.
First you must learn to abandon intuition AND reason.
Now, you must fixate upon the goal of creating an attention grabbing, clickbaity, apocalyptic prediction.
And then you must abandon any interest in observation and retreat to a basement containing computers where you are surrounded by other people who have a similarly limited contact with reality.
After a period of time tweaking and adjusting parameters, you must pick the simulation that creates a vision of dire catastrophe.
Then, don’t think. Just don’t think about it at all. Just publish the thing. And wait for the accolades from the warmist cult master and their hoards of devotees.
(apologies typo; Should read “masters”. Since there are many, vying for authority.)
“Scientists know that a warming climate can be expected to gradually sap oceans of oxygen, leaving fish, crabs, squid, sea stars, and other marine life struggling to breathe.”
Attn. you fools and assorted “Deniers”, any criticism of their “Study” is wrong because “Scientists” already ~”know it”!
And shhhhhh, don’t tell anyone right now, but we’re all gonna’ die also because Scientists know a Warming Climate will attract the Evil Space Alien Invaders! All that’s left is to fill in the blanks. Or move to the North Korean Utopia, “before it’s too late!” Attn. you fools, get on the “right side of History”: Pay me now or pay me later! “It is Written.”
So, just thinking out loud here:
The megalodon was a really really big shark. Clearly an apex predator.
It lived during a time of warmth and appears to have died out with the onset of glacial cooling.
SO – let’s suppose that this massive animal ate, whales and large fish, and they ate lesser fish or plankton and so on down to the tiniest fish.
Clearly, enough biomass was sustained by the oceans to allow the evolution of this monster predator.
In other word, during times of extreme warmth the ocean was buzzing with life.
I’m sure that the denizens of WUWT could give better examples of biodiversity and biomass exploding in quantity during warm periods.
But, isn’t it obvious that nothing was “struggling to breathe”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon
This pathetic.
The Model is useless as it can’t be subject to Falsification,after all this is about a postulated 15 years + into the future. How can anyone test a model on something that doesn’t exist for years ahead?
To expand on this modeling absurdity is to consider when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much much higher for millions of years,yet Mammals,Dinosaurs and of course the O2 bearing plants manage to survive,many of them are still around today.
Ginkgo,Sycamore and other plants have been around for a 100 million years are still with us today. So have Crocodiles and bird species.So have a number of insects. They lived under much higher Atmospheric levels of CO2 and presumably higher levels of CH4 as well but are here today.According to the model there would be little O2 available to support the ecosystem,implying they should have died out and replaced by low O2 tolerant plants that would have been all over the planet,but they are not easy to find today for some reason………….
These so called researchers left out a lot of factors that dooms their silly modeling exercise.
In addition to the posts above discussing why a paper based on sequential runs of a model that has never been validated, was even published; the following sentence made me wonder what the authors were thinking about the source of their “discovery.”
“As the model runs progressed, those tiny differences grew and expanded, producing a set of climate simulations useful for studying questions about variability and change.”
Did it never occur to the authors that their model was becoming unstable as the runs progressed?
Brooks,
Why would it occur in a field where the science itself is becoming unstable as it progresses?
I am stunned that it took so long for someone to comment on this. It was the sentence that jumped out at me as I read the article. It shows that their model was garbage, because gas imbalances are not unstable like that, but re-balance over time.
They just discovered that the climate is chaotic!
They ran models. They made “scientific predictions”. They published their results. They sent out a press release.
But at the very end….They admit:
“Currently ocean oxygen measurements are relatively sparse.”
IOW
They made it all up !
Good summary, thanks
Resourceguy,
Do you think I should apply for a job at a university as a “Climate Communicator?” I mean, WUWT just posted a study yesterday (day before?) about how educating people on the facts, and physical characteristics of the climate makes them LESS concerned about it. Maybe what the world needs is an idiot like myself dumbing it all down properly for the “common man” so to speak?
Because it’s OBVIOUS that “climate communicators” like Cook et al are clearly the opposite….the stupid making things complicated=getting people concerned over nothing. 🙂
….and they got volume-based pub mill credit and vita lines for the exercise.
It is even dumber when it has been shown that the Ocean waters already have 99% of the Free CO2 in the system.
How can a trace of CO2 increase in the waters suddenly endanger all the waters?
Sunsettommy-
Because those little, bossy, CO2 molecules go swimming, and in doing so, they push the “ocean molecular patrons” limit over the top, or they pee in the water, which both warms it up AND acidifies it, so Gaia makes some of the oxygen molecules jump OUT of the water….er…um….but I need to call Kevin Trenberth to find out where they are going because according to Phildot, they are NOT in the atmosphere or the oceans anymore!
Which makes me think that there is a giant invisible sink (or server room) somewhere in which not only are the missing oxygen molecules “hiding” but the missing heat from the Earth’s energy imbalance, the missing link, the missing bristle-cone pine proxies, one half of every pair of socks in human history, and Hillary Clinton’s missing email server, and Lois Lerner’s emails!
I’m still working on my climate communications skills….but I’ll have results for you by 2030….I promise!
Aphan April 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm
Sunsettommy-
Because those little, bossy, CO2 molecules go swimming, and in doing so, they push the “ocean molecular patrons” limit over the top, or they pee in the water, which both warms it up AND acidifies it, so Gaia makes some of the oxygen molecules jump OUT of the water….er…um….but I need to call Kevin Trenberth to find out where they are going because according to Phildot, they are NOT in the atmosphere or the oceans anymore!
Which makes me think that there is a giant invisible sink (or server room) somewhere in which not only are the missing oxygen molecules “hiding”
There are several sinks, one of them is the CO2 in the atmosphere. Every mole of CO2 produced by combustion consumes one mole of O2. In addition to the CO2, H2O is also produced, in fact we consume about 3 moles of O2 for every mole of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion.
Phil.
“Every mole of CO2 produced by combustion consumes one mole of O2. In addition to the CO2, H2O is also produced, in fact we consume about 3 moles of O2 for every mole of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion.”
CO2 molecules contain 2 oxygen atoms, not one.
H2O molecules contain 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Aphan May 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Phil.
“Every mole of CO2 produced by combustion consumes one mole of O2. In addition to the CO2, H2O is also produced, in fact we consume about 3 moles of O2 for every mole of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion.”
CO2 molecules contain 2 oxygen atoms, not one.
H2O molecules contain 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
And a mole of O2 contains two oxygen atoms so as I said:
“Every mole of CO2 produced by combustion consumes one mole of O2”
What you also appear to be ignorant of is the composition of the fossil fuels!
Methane: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
Propane: C3H8 + 5O2 -> 3CO2 + 4H2O
Octane: C8H18 + 12.5O2 -> 8CO2 + 9H2O
etc.
Aphan May 1, 2016 at 5:01 pm
Phil.
Actually, technically, plants absorb CO2, turn it into sugars AND O2 AND CO2.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html
No, plants absorb water and produce O2 from it in the light dependent reactions of photosynthesis. The Calvin cycle takes CO2 and using the H transferred from the water via NADPH converts it into sugar.
‘Scientists know that a warming climate can be expected to gradually sap oceans of CO2, leaving marine plants gasping for breath. This also effects the animal life since the plants have less CO2 to convert into O2 that the animal life needs to breath.”
Fixed it for ya.
Plants don’t convert CO2 into O2! They convert it into sugars.
Sugars and CO2.
Converting CO2 into CO2, really!
Phil.
Actually, technically, plants absorb CO2, turn it into sugars AND O2 AND CO2.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html
No they don’t, see above!
The following link http://www.unisense.com/files/PDF/Diverse/Seawater%20&%20Gases%20table.pdf has a series of tables showing, among other relationships, the solubility of Oxygen in seawater with respect to changes in temperature and salinity. The higher the salinity, the lower the O2 solubility. Salinity varies from more than 0.038 in the Mediterranean Sea to less than 0.030 in the Arctic, although most of the Oceans vary between 0.034 and 0.036. At 10 C, this means that O2 solubility would vary from 277 to 291 (micro moles per liter) with the natural variability of ocean salinity. Ar 0.035 salinity O2 solubility varies from 295 at 8 C to 270 at 12 C.
Interestingly, the highest salinity parts of the oceans correspond to the parts of the oceans with the highest temperatures. These would be the Mediterranean Sea and the tropical oceans. These would be the ocean areas with the lowest O2 solubility. If these authors conclusions were correct, then we should already be seeing a major die off in the Mediterranean Sea and the tropical oceans driven by oxygen depletion. Conversely, cold fresh water lakes should be absolutely teaming with life (compared to high salinity/high temperature sea water) since these cold lake waters have the highest O2 solubility.
Darn, there you are bringing real science into the conversation again. How can us grant whores get our grants to study this stuff if you keep on doing that!!!
LOL!
a major die off in the Mediterranean Sea and the tropical oceans driven by oxygen depletion
==============
what instead you are seeing is a major die off due to fishing. especially with the widespread use of nets and dragging. oxygen has nothing to do with it, because with less fish there is more oxygen for each fish.
if reduced oxygen was an issue, nature would quickly solve the problem by favoring those fish with larger gills. in a few generations there would be no fish with smaller gills, and the problem would be solved.
A similar adaptation happens in humans. We quickly adapt (in a matter of weeks) to living at altitude through blood chemistry changes, such that reduced oxygen is not an issue. And in populations that live at high altitude over time they are genetically selected to develop larger lung capacity.
Back when I was in school, I read that the natives who live in the Andes, have lungs that are several percent larger in relation to the rest of their body, than do the rest of us.
Brooks,
Wait…are you saying that oxygen is not a well mixed gas that drives ocean chemistry? *faints* (sarc)
Conversely, cold fresh water lakes should be absolutely teaming with life (compared to high salinity/high temperature sea water) since these cold lake waters have the highest O2 solubility.
But since the freshwater might have no buffering ability you’ll have a much lower pH and therefore not very fertile. Cold acidic lakes are not very fertile compared with those in limestone areas.
Are you sure these people even have a computer?. I bet there is no hardware envolved. It’s sort of like — I got the computer in me! This all sounds like paper and pencil stuff — you know, science fiction writing.
Eugene WR Gallun
As the ocean de-oxygenates the Kraken will appear. So it is written and so it will be.
Eugene WR Gallun
What’s the best bait for Kraken, Eugene; maybe a live blue whale or cut bait?
Oh, and for fly fishermen like George E. Smith, is there a special pattern that’s more effective or do you just “match the hatch?”
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I think I’m gonna need a bigger boat.
I suggest using 97% of climate scientists as bait.
On second thought, I don’t think even a Kraken could get past the taste….never mind.
“Oh, and for fly fishermen….” A Cessna works nicely.
Aphan – Hadn’t thought of that. Probably the only thing a Kraken won’t eat.
Paul – Is that a dry Cessna or a wet Cessna?
Once it hits the water, won’t it be wet regardless?
CO2 feeds algae, algae produces O2, how does feeding algae reduce O2 in the oceans? Warming oceans will outgas O2, but ocean warming isn’t due to CO2.
They had to make a few simplifying assumptions in order to get their models to work.
Leaving out algae was one of them.
/sarc
Wrong Thread but I was taken by the Vice President of the Royal Society’s letter in today’s TIMES and the claim of his upcoming ‘no censorship’ debate about UK’s fossil fuel emissions and how to reduce them – thoroughly parti pris before starting. So I wrote to him; –
Professor Alex Halliday
Vice President
The Royal Society
6 – 9 Carlton House Terrace
LONDON SW1Y 5AG
“Nullius In Verba”
I was interested in your letter to The Times about your upcoming ‘open meeting’ . I do hope that you will be allowing the views of climate scientists who do not believe that the carbon dioxide increase heralds appreciable or dangerous global warming. I hope it will be recognised that increased carbon dioxide is beneficial to plant growth and that billions of poverty-stricken people need access to cheap, reliable electricity through ‘fossil fuels’.
We need to recognise that whatever the facts, suppression of the UK’s CO2 emissions will have no effect whatever on ‘global warming’. Recognise that even the political IPCC admits that there has been no climate change to date.
I warmly recommend that you should read the very recent devastating Complaint of Bias in the BBC on the website notalotofpeopleknowthat – it runs to 162 pages and inter alia sets out where the actual non-political science of climate now stands. There’s a bit of a go at your Professor Tim Palmer in there somewhere – his ‘misstatement’ about Cyclone Pam to the BBC Today programme. I think the Royal Society should realise the power of today’s internet – in that case an embarrassingly untruthful statement about ‘climate change’ could have been avoided with a couple of clicks bringing up velocities, tracks and barometrics of all South Pacific cyclones for forty years.
But that incident is illustrative of the dishonesty of ‘climate science’ these days – the ‘consensus’ scandal of Cook et al, data manipulation (Karl et al), the hockey stick, ‘climategate’ – the list is endless. The Royal Society is better than all that.
Yours sincerely
Good letter, but I haven’t been able to trace the letter in today’s Times to which you are replying. Prof. Micheal Kelly had a letter published on Tuesday in which he criticised the RS, following an excellent opinion piece by Matt Ridley on Monday. Was the letter somewhere in the news section?
First ocean acidification, now ocean de-oxygenation. What’s next: ocean evaporation? ‘The world’s oceans may disappear entirely by 2100 due to carbon dioxide emissions and for sure, it’s worse than previously thought. Send money, now’.
“The research team found that deoxygenation caused by climate change could already be detected in the southern Indian Ocean and parts of the eastern tropical Pacific and Atlantic basins.”
Go check.
Was just doing that. There are places in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea that are ‘OMZ’ (oxygen minimum zones) at mid depth 400-1000m. In those two OMZ, surface waters are fine. 2013 paper on a fine grid regional ocean model of biology and currents. The reason seems to be currents and gyres, not surface temperature or biology, as oxygenated deep water pushed up from the southern ocean just doesnt reach those places. Biology without currents does not reproduce the OMZs. Sea water oxygenated at depth comes from Antarctic thermohaline circulation inside the circumpolar current winter sea ice formation exudes brine, and the saltier oxegenated surface water sinks. It gets pushed north in the Indian ocean, and then shoals.There is insufficient historical data to know whether these OMZ gyres are changing, and no attribution to global warming that i could find in a couple hours looking or in the 2013 paper that reproduced the general OMZ features in a model featureing biology, ocean bottom shape, and currents.
NCARs anthropogenic attribution appears to be a fact free fanrication..