Some impacts — like sea temperature rise — are already in progress; others expected to occur within next century
Princeton University
Researchers led by Princeton University examined a range of possible climate-related impacts on the ocean to predict when these impacts are likely to occur. Some impacts – such as sea temperature rise and acidification – have already begun while others, like changes to microbial productivity, which serves as the basis of the marine food web, will happen over the next century. Images from NASA EarthData show ocean color, an indicator of microbial productivity.Credit NASA
Sea temperature and ocean acidification have climbed during the last three decades to levels beyond what is expected due to natural variation alone, a new study led by Princeton researchers finds. Meanwhile other impacts from climate change, such as changes in the activity of ocean microbes that regulate the Earth’s carbon and oxygen cycles, will take several more decades to a century to appear. The report was published Aug. 19 online in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The study looked at physical and chemical changes to the ocean that are associated with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human activities. “We sought to address a key scientific question: When, why and how will important changes become detectable above the normal variations that we expect to see in the global ocean?” said Sarah Schlunegger, a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University’s Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (AOS).
The study confirms that outcomes tied directly to the escalation of atmospheric carbon dioxide have already emerged in the existing 30-year observational record. These include sea surface warming, acidification and increases in the rate at which the ocean removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
In contrast, processes tied indirectly to the ramp up of atmospheric carbon dioxide through the gradual modification of climate and ocean circulation will take longer, from three decades to more than a century. These include changes in upper-ocean mixing, nutrient supply, and the cycling of carbon through marine plants and animals.
“What is new about this study is that it gives a specific timeframe for when ocean changes will occur,” said Jorge Sarmiento, the George J. Magee Professor of Geoscience and Geological Engineering, Emeritus. “Some changes will take a long time while others are already detectable.”
The ocean provides a climate service to the planet by absorbing excess heat and carbon from the atmosphere, thereby slowing the pace of rising global temperatures, Schlunegger said. This service, however, comes with a penalty — namely ocean acidification and ocean warming, which alter how carbon cycles through the ocean and impacts marine ecosystems.
Acidification and ocean warming can harm the microbial marine organisms that serve as the base of the marine food web that feeds fisheries and coral reefs, produce oxygen and contribute to the draw-down of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The study aimed to sift out ocean changes linked to human-made climate change from those due to natural variability. Natural fluctuations in the climate can disguise changes in the ocean, so researchers looked at when the changes would be so dramatic that they would stand out above the natural variability.
Climate research is often divided into two categories, modeling and observations — those scientists who analyze observations of the real Earth, and those who use models to predict what changes are to come. This study leverages the predictions made by climate models to inform observational efforts of what changes are likely, and where and when to look for them, Schlunegger said.
The researchers conducted modeling that simulates potential future climate states that could result from a combination of human-made climate change and random chance. These experiments were performed with the Earth System Model, a climate model which has an interactive carbon cycle, so that changes in the climate and carbon cycle can be considered in tandem.
Use of the Earth System Model was facilitated by John Dunne, who leads ocean carbon modeling activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton. The Princeton team included Richard Slater, senior earth system modeler in AOS; Keith Rodgers, an AOS research oceanographer now at Pusan National University in South Korea; and Jorge Sarmiento, the George J. Magee Professor of Geoscience and Geological Engineering, Emeritus. The team also included Thomas Frölicher, a professor at the University of Bern and a former postdoctoral fellow at Princeton, and Masao Ishii of the Japan Meteorological Agency.
The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean. The study also indicates that the detectability of some changes in the ocean would benefit from improvements to the current observational sampling strategy. These include looking deeper into the ocean for changes in phytoplankton, and capturing changes in both summer and winter, rather than just the annual mean, for the ocean-atmosphere exchange of carbon dioxide.
“Our results indicate that many types of observational efforts are critical for our understanding of our changing planet and our ability to detect change,” Schlunegger said. These include time-series or permanent locations of continuous measurement, as well as regional sampling programs and global remote sensing platforms.
###
The project was funded by NASA and NOAA grants. Additional support came from the Institute for Basic Science in Busan, South Korea, and the Swiss National Science Foundation.
The study, “Emergence of anthropogenic signals in the ocean carbon cycle,” was published in Nature Climate Change on August 19, 2019.
“Don’t cut our funding”
Precis is an art form…
“The study confirms that outcomes tied directly to the escalation of atmospheric carbon dioxide have already emerged in the existing 30-year observational record. ”
It has been proven that these observed outcomes are the direct result of the escalation of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
RoHa – The notion that observed outcomes to date are caused by CO2 comes from the fact that the climate models are tuned to observations to date. In other words it’s circular logic. The notion that model predictions that have not been observed yet will come true later is a priori logic[*]. Their findings have absolutely no value.
[*] A priori : A reasonable-sounding argument to excuse a prediction failure.
If ocean acidification is from Carbonic Acid, and a colder ocean absorbs more CO2, wouldn’t a warmer ocean prevent more absorption and thereby prevent acidification?
Bryan A-
CO2 should be driven out of the aqueous solution by rising temperature. But if the partial pressure of the gas(CO2) above the liquid surface increases, the molarity of the CO2 in the liquid should also increase. How the salinity of the oceans affect this , I don’t know . There was a chapter on “colligative properties” in PChem which addressed this , but i have forgottenall of the particulars
“beyond what is expected due to natural variation alone”
Like they have any idea what the range of natural variation is.
Really! They assume too much
That’s the problem with modern-day climate science: They always assume too much. And they make too many unsubstantiated claims such as the claim that they can distinguish the human fingerprint of CO2 in the oceans from natural variation already, and CO2 is causing the oceans to warm and become “acidic”.
This is what they are basing their studies on and none of it has any basis in fact. They start out with the umproven assertion that human-caused CO2 is warming the oceans, and it gets worse from there.
If Alarmists didn’t have ambiguity, (confusion of the issues), they wouldn’t have anything at all to talk about. Include in this category: ocean warming, ocean acidification and sea level rise.
They assume that their salinity and temperature readings are good enough to get a global change in average pH that is smaller than daily variations.
Yeah, they assume too much.
They expect very little or no natural variation, so the statement in their thinking is true. It’s just an assertion without definitive evidence, but that’s all they need to justify their conclusions. Weep for the death of science and logic.
“The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean.”
So some of the current effects are before AGW? oh noes.
“The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean.”
“Funding”, they left out the word “funding”, as in ““The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that FUNDING of ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean.”
What a nifty gig, one that may last for many decades. Get on the beginning of the gig and you are set for life.
> some of the current effects are before AGW?
To measure a 30-100 year delay in effects that have yet to be observed certainly stretches credibility.
—–
Golgafrincham was a planet, once home to the Great Circling Poets of Arium. The descendants of these poets made up tales of impending doom about the planet. The tales varied; some said it was going to crash into the sun, or the moon was going to crash into the planet. Others said the planet was to be invaded by twelve-foot piranha bees and still others said it was in danger of being eaten by an enormous mutant star-goat.
These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships.
—–
The parallels are striking. Thank you. Douglas Adams.
…”to inform observational efforts…” They’re certainly experts on the jargon…what the heck does that mean?
“…observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future…” Jobs for the boys for many decades to come – the long term gravy train is what it’s really all about.
Alastair, I think “to inform observational efforts…” means to develop a tunnel-vision relationship between change (cause) and effect, that is, they claim to have determined what anthropogenic change will produce what effect. This is extremely unscientific as they have no regard for how complex the earth climate systems really are, and will not monitor all other potentially associated changes that could participate in the effect. And, as noted by several commentators, they need funding well into the future to maintain their tunnel-vision. They all should be sent to remedial science class.
What does “leveraging” mean?
”The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean.”
Ah yes, we find the real purpose of the study!! The endless gravy train of grants must continue even when the climate scam collapses because of “delay in the emergence of effects” maybe 100 years from now.
How cynical!
+10
“The finding of a 30- to 100-year delay in the emergence of effects suggests that ocean observation programs should be maintained for many decades into the future to effectively monitor the changes occurring in the ocean.”
Since this delay hasn’t been observed yet, can it fairly be described as a finding? Do words have any meaning to climate scientists, anymore?
I read this summary as just a naked attempt to leverage fear over climate change to funding for someone’s pet project. And since the models have told them what they want to find, I’m sure that when the time comes, a particular statistical technique will be selected, in yet another “study,” to make sure that the observations match the models.
Right on, Kurt!
The corruption of language is service to a political agenda revealing (and leading to more of) corruption of thinking was a favorite topic of Orwell’s.
And the “climate scientists”, ie the climate faithful, are increasingly Orwellian as the real climate measurements of the “real” (as opposed to “modeled”) Earth fail them and fail to confirm their models.
The product of a model is not data, it is a quantification of a theory, which then can be tested by measurements in the real world, ie, by getting real data.
All this talk about the so-called ”acidification” of the oceans, but no specific data or charts to be seen anywhere.
The so-called “acidification” of the oceans doesn’t pass the litmus test ;<)
Caustic sense of humor. Good one.
Or acidic wit.
NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification
There’s the truth, then there’s the whole truth.
From a climate expert at NOAA, the study of ocean acidification is so young “they don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health” and they can’t name any place in the world that is definitely affected by it.
Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com FOI’d emails among NOAA scientists discussing a NY times op-ed draft.The editor was serving up an apocalyse:
NY Times, ocean acidification, headline
…and he wanted all the dirt:
Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans?
Tony Thomas writes that Dr Shallin Busch, who works for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Program discussed the draft of the article with fellow scientist Ms Applebaum. She warns that they can’t say that OA (Ocean Acidification) was definitely a problem anywhere at the moment:
Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this…!
Ocean ‘acidification’ is well nigh impossible. The oceans are buffered. Unless the seabeds run out of rocks then the ocean will remain at or around their current pH between around 7.9-8.5 ie slightly alkaline more or less indefinitely.
CaCO3(insoluble) + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2 soluble and alkaline
+10
Excellent. …Kind of thing I’ve been looking for…. Thanks
The Total Myth of Ocean Acidification: Science! Edition https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/25/the-total-myth-of-ocean-acidification-science-edition/
The phrase “ocean acidification” was literally invented out of thin air in 2003 by Ken Caldiera to enable liberal arts majors to sound sciencey when scaring the bejesus out of the scientifically illiterate masses. The geochemical process has been well-understood for about 100 years… But didn’t get a crisis-monger nickname until 2003…
More on ocean acidification
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/29/ocean-acidification-by-fossil-fuel-emissions/
These people talk about yet another model result as if it is evidence, new evidence, rather than a computer programmed speculation, informed by their pre-existing biases.
Reminder: The ARGOS floats found the oceans to be cooling.
Since this was not in accord with what was “expected”, they dreamed up a justification for changing the result to warming.
Now they warn that this invented warming is worse than anyone had previously thought!
Such good liars, they believe their own lies.
Luckily plenty of other people do not.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling
Nicholas McGinley
August 19, 2019 at 11:35 pm
Thanks for the link…it’s a pretty shocking story. Scandalous really, the tricks these so called scientists get up to.
Key statement in the whole article:
“This study leverages the predictions made by climate models to inform observational efforts of what changes are likely, and where and when to look for them, Schlunegger said.”
So, you model the results that your narrative demands, then, so “informed”, you observe and report on the desired results, no doubt ignoring observations that don’t fit the story.
That friends, is not scientific method, in fact it’s an abomination of no credibility.
Climate research, they reckon, is in two categories modelling and observation; the modelling comes first in order to direct what to look for, they admit it themselves.
That sounds to me like a recipe for confirmation bias, as is usual in CC ‘science’.
The ocean as a fudge factor for AGW theory is a form of circular reasoning that derives from an atmosphere bias in climate science
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/06/ohc/
The missing links are believed to exist as brown matter and energy.
Which raises the question, “Why not publish in a real journal that does real peer review and hasn’t got a reputation for publishing junk science?”
The answer would appear to be the logic behind the paper. Comparing models with observations (good) and then prioritising the models (bad).
If the observations don’t show the 30 to 100 year time-lags but the models do, the best we can say is that the models deviate from the current trend in observations over time.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that reality will bend to match the simplified representation of itself that has been created in computer code.
“Climate change” is an uber-flexible un-refutable story that writes itself.
Any changes of any kind that are detected are automatically ascribed to baleful human CO2.
It’s easy and it works!
Two message come out of this .
Work hard enough and you can ‘find’ an elephant in an empty match box.
And send more funding
The Oceans have been cooling ever since India crashed into Asia. It got really bad when the Icelandic Gap opened up. The ‘modelers’ always ignore continental drift, saying that it is slow and not a factor. Yet, a change in trace gasses from 0.03% to 0.04% somehow will cause disaster?
The ARGO network is worthwhile on it’s own, just like the money spent on astronomy. NASA does not need to resort to astrology to get funding! So NOAA should stay well clear of CAGW gobbledegook.
“Sea temperature and ocean acidification have climbed during the last three decades to levels beyond what is expected due to natural variation alone, a new study led by Princeton researchers finds.”
What a big, smelly pile of liberal elitis B.S. !
Without full knowledge of the planet’s climate system, eco-interactions and interface parameters one can never isolate human contributions from natural.
Just get on with living, improving the standard of living for everyone and the planet will take care of itself.
Linking acidification and ocean warming in the same sentence could suggest the two are causally linked. However warming oceans degas and so become less ‘acidic’. Only cold oceans take on more CO2 and even they manage to transfer the CO2 into deeper colder layers. And how any scientist can call absorption of CO 2 acidification is beyond me, unless of course it is meant to frighten the gullible
“And how any scientist can call absorption of CO 2 acidification is beyond me, unless of course it is meant to frighten the gullible.”
Which it does.
Frightening the gullible leads to increased funding, something scientists need, hence it is all good.
“Never underestimate the power of incentives.” – Charlie Munger
“Carbonic acid is a weak acid that’s formed from the reaction of carbon dioxide dissolved in water.”—source: https://study.com/academy/lesson/carbonic-acid-formation-structure-chemical-equation.html (among many, many other references)
Hence, there is a firm foundation for scientists to state absorption of CO2 (in water) results in “acidification”. The fly-in-the-ointment is when “scientists” extend this simple process of acidification to the world’s ocean surface layer, which is a complex, buffered solution that has a current average pH=8.1, significantly away from pH=7.0 neutral.
What did one ocean say to the other? nothing.They just waved.
Did you hear about the snail that got beat up by two turtles?
He went to the police and they asked him,”Did you get a good look at the turtles who did this?”
He said,”No,it all happened so fast.”
Hear about the ship that ran aground carrying a cargo of red paint and black paint?
The whole crew was marooned.
What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall? Dam.
How much do pirates pay for their earrings? A buccaneer.
If you stand next to TonyL,you can hear the ocean.
Are you finally running out of new material? I’m happy that sweet corn here is not a buccaneer.
“Sponges grow in the ocean. That just kills me. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn’t happen.”
Steven Wright
Why do scuba divers fall backwards out of the boat?
Because if they fell forwards they’d still be in the boat!
“If you stand next to TonyL,you can hear the ocean.”
I don’t see any humor in that one.
Maybe it’s because you have a blind sense of humor…Did you hear about the blind man who picked up a hammer and saw?
I thought many of Dan’s jokes were funny — the first time I read them in “Boy’s Life” almost 60 years ago, that is. Now, not so much. He desperately needs some new material that’s not as old as I am and making the rounds for about the 25th or 30th time.
Then there was the 80 year old magnate who decided he needed to sire an heir to his estate and went to his doctor to find out if that was still possible. After a thorough medical exam the doctor told him, “I’m sorry, but your exam shows that you’re heir headed but not heir conditioned.” Playboy Mag. ca. 1966
What do a hurricane,tornado,fire and a divorce have in common?
They are 4 ways you can lose your house.
“I have terrible news,Mr.Larson.You have cancer and you have Alzheimer’s.”
“Well Doctor,at least I don’t have cancer”.
“Mrs.Larson,you’re not going deaf in your left ear.You seem to have a suppository stuck in there!”
“Well,now I know what happened to my hearing aid.”
Patient:How much to have this tooth pulled?
Dentist:Ninety dollars.
Patient:Ninety dollars for a few minutes’ work?
Dentist: I can do it slower if you like.
“Doctor,there is an invisible man in your waiting room.”
“Tell him I can’t see him now.”
“Doctor,am I going to die?”
“That’s the last thing you’re going to do.”
“needs some new material”
There is plenty of comedy material in the substance of the studies and articles posted everyday on WUWT. The alarmist claims in them are so outlandish that they are already jokes. I laugh every day reading this website. It’s very entertaining. 🙂
We hear talk of man made CO2, but how is it possible to then sample some CO2 and say that it is man made.
After all what is the difference between a lightning strike starting a fire, thus producing CO2, and a human burning anything to product energy.
MJE VK5ELL
It isn’t necessary to distinguish the two, since we already know our contributions. It is not really controversial that we are in fact responsible for the majority of the increase in the completely beneficial, life-giving plant food, CO2.
What you say is true but with regard to forest fires, one can measure C14 isotope in biomass and C12/C13 ratios are different in some ancient sources. Of course, some fires of biomass are man made and even deliverate, e.g. burning of pristine forest land to clear it to grow crops for biofuel production, which is an example of destroying the environment in order to save it.
Nearly all of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural. See Harde 2017, Harde 2019, Berry 2019 and any of several video lectures by Murray Salby (https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ ) Is a good one to start with. Also read https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ to see that the IPCC assumption this post is based on, namely “human CO2 has caused all of the increase” is falsified.
This “study” from PU reeks. Pure unadulterated pseudoscience.
Remember when there was a difference between science and psychics?
Congratulations to all here who managed to get past the second sentence (emphasis added):
…while others, like changes to microbial productivity, which serves as the basis of the marine food web, will happen over the next century.
Nature Miscommunications indeed.