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.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stunning…I want my tax money returned…this “new” finding has been around for years. See this for a reference to pollution as one of the root causes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwihpcL5ybLMAhUFg4MKHWwJCK4QFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fdn14835-marine-dead-zones-leave-crabs-gasping%2F&usg=AFQjCNFNNGcEk082WITjC6exbcVGOx-s_Q
Quick, we need another survey. If 97% of scientists agree there is a consensus on the findings of this “model” study then the science is settled. Calling John Cook.
“But it’s been difficult to determine whether this anticipated oxygen drain is already having a noticeable impact.”
That’s why studies use models instead of actual observations. It’s much easier to program “wishful thinking” into a model than into reality.
So there are no “natural processes” capable of causing the climate to change? That’s what the above quote infers to me when it refers to natural processes and climate change as completely separate events. Apparently, natural processes are only capable of causing “weather” phenomena, not climate change. But that would mean that the climate never changed before humans came on the scene. There were only temporary weather events for most of the Earth’s 4 billion years of existence. Do they actually believe that?
“Do they actually believe that?”
Cognitive dissonance allows them to believe it and not believe it at the same time.
As with all their work, the cognitive dissonance is probably fake too.
No point reading any further than this
Why? – that’s how ensemble forecasting is done in NWP.
Varying the starting conditions slightly with each run, shows you the sensitivity of the system to those starting conditions and in the case of medium range weather forecasts places a probability on the likely outcome.
I believe the cooler water rises due to upwelling along coasts due to the coreolis effect pulling surface water away from the coasts and then it sinks elsewhere due to the upwelling, it has little to do with temperature.
The Coriolis force only acts on a moving body.
It does not exert itself on things that are stationary.
IOW: water has to have had a primary force acted on it before Coriolis takes effect.
It always acts to the right in the NH ad to the left in the SH.
So long as the wind blows, the oceans will be oxygenated.
How on earth did the oceans survive the the Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval mass extinctions?
That’s exactly what I was about to ask because that question exposes this study for what it is.
From to Noah to NOAA, the news has been that of imminent doom.
And yet, here we are.
Just for laughs, it is undoubtedly true that seawater is oxygenated in some small part by ionizing radiation, either from terrestrial radioactive elements (such as the thousands of tons of uranium, etc., in every cubic kilometer of seawater) or from cosmic rays. The main effect of ionizing radiation is the splitting of water molecules into hydroxyl radicals (HO) and hydrogen atoms (H). The hydroxyls can combine to form hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which naturally decomposes into water and oxygen. This is the mechanism of radiation damage in living tissue. (The peroxide attacks most any other molecule.)
That’s strange. Culver’s is now selling Atlantic cod fish sandwiches because the fishing boats are pulling in loads of cod. Awhile back, the cod shoals were all fished out.
Gee, I wonder what it all means!
That extra wind they’re getting from DC and other alarmist countries ought to help with the aeration
The usefulness of this paper for anything meaningful is questionable as it does not go into particular details about how the model or model interpreter can eventually discern the natural variations from the effects of climate change in 2030. It’s like saying, yes we found evidence but then not showing the evidence
This is a real problem, if we only understood the parameters well enough to evaluate it. Ocean Anoxic Events do seem to concentrate during warm periods. There was an uber one at the Permian extinction, possibly explaining the marine component. They pop up again in the Cretaceous with minor consequences and again in the Eocene with somewhat more. Minor oscillations seem to happen all the while in between.
Yet vast time periods of extremely warm climate occur without OAE’s.
“The US Geological Survey defines anoxic waters as those with dissolved oxygen concentration of less than .5 milligrams per litre.” Hypoxic events maybe….but anoxic?
This horrific climate forecast was brought to you by the increasingly unlikely RCP8.5 scenario
“Finding forced trends in oceanic oxygen” by Matthew C. Long et al, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, February 2016. Ungated copy here.
Journalists reporting these papers without mentioning that they’re based on RCP8.5 is malpractice (of a sorts, assuming there is such a thing for journalists).
The nightmarish predictions of climate change that dominate the news almost all rely on the most severe of the four scenarios used by the Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC’s most recent: RCP8.5. It describes a future in which much has gone wrong (details here), most importantly…
a slowdown in tech progress (coal is the fuel of the late 21st century, as it was in the late 19thC), and
unusually rapid population growth (inexplicably, that fertility in sub-Saharan Africa does not decline or crash as it has everywhere else).
The current bankruptcies of coal miners already suggest that the late 21st century will not be, like the late 19th, dominated by burning coal (details here). There is little evidence that fertility in Africa will remain high as their incomes grow.
Once again, ignoring paleohistory (and even recorded history). Temps were frequently much higher, and fish and invertibrates survived and thrived. Existence disproof.