SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Between 35.6% and 95% of 20th century ocean surface climates — defined by surface water temperature, pH and the concentration of the mineral aragonite — may disappear by 2100, depending on how greenhouse gas emissions develop in the first half of the 21st century, according to a study published in Scientific Reports. The findings also suggest that between 10.3% and 82% of the global ocean may experience surface climates that have not existed before.
Katie Lotterhos and colleagues modelled ocean climates globally for three time periods: the early 19th century (1795–1834), the late 20th century (1965–2004) and the late 21st century (2065–2104). The authors compared these modelled climates across various locations using two emission scenarios, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. Under these scenarios the volume of greenhouse gases emitted during the 21st century either peaks in 2050 followed by a slowed increase, or peaks in 2100 followed by a slowed increase, respectively.
Through their comparisons, the authors were able to show which ocean climates from the 19th and 20th centuries may no longer be found in the 21st century (disappearance), and climates that may emerge in the 21st century which did not exist in the 18th and 20th centuries (novel climates). The authors showed that while ocean climates did not change significantly between the 19th and 20th centuries, by 2100, 10% to 82% of the ocean surface may experience new climates with higher temperatures, more acidic pH, and lower saturation of aragonite. Aragonite is a mineral which corals and other marine organisms use to form shells. Under the RCP 4.5 scenario, 35.6% of surface ocean climates may disappear by 2100, which rises to up to 95% under the RCP 8.5 scenario.
The authors conclude that while some marine species currently keep pace with changing ocean climates by dispersing to new habitats, this may no longer be possible if existing ocean climates disappear, forcing species to either adapt rapidly to new climates or disappear.
###
Article details
Novel and disappearing climates in the global surface ocean from 1800 to 2100
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94872-4
The paper at Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94872-4
Abstract
Marine ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented warming and acidification caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. For the global sea surface, we quantified the degree that present climates are disappearing and novel climates (without recent analogs) are emerging, spanning from 1800 through different emission scenarios to 2100. We quantified the sea surface environment based on model estimates of carbonate chemistry and temperature. Between 1800 and 2000, no gridpoints on the ocean surface were estimated to have experienced an extreme degree of global disappearance or novelty. In other words, the majority of environmental shifts since 1800 were not novel, which is consistent with evidence that marine species have been able to track shifting environments via dispersal. However, between 2000 and 2100 under Representative Concentrations Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 projections, 10–82% of the surface ocean is estimated to experience an extreme degree of global novelty. Additionally, 35–95% of the surface ocean is estimated to experience an extreme degree of global disappearance. These upward estimates of climate novelty and disappearance are larger than those predicted for terrestrial systems. Without mitigation, many species will face rapidly disappearing or novel climates that cannot be outpaced by dispersal and may require evolutionary adaptation to keep pace.
<Yawn> It’s worse than we thought…
“Up to 95% of ocean surface
climatesmay disappear by 2100″Oh my god, the Earth is being Marsified !
Oceans are evaporating, hot vapour is floating to top of the atmosphere, it is blown away by solar wind into interplanetary space.
Calling on occupants of interplanetary crafts to do something, do anything about it to save the planet. This is the ‘tipping point’, I tell yua we are indeed doomed, unless we get our oceans back.
Doomed, I tellya! DOOOOOMMMMMED!
The headline gives it away: “MAY disappear”.
(I won’t be responsible if it does not.)
Plausible is the novel standard of science, jurisprudence, etc., in lieu of scientifically viable and probable claims.
These are smart people who can can progress humanity. Instead they are caught up in a political web and forced to make incoherent claims that can never be validated. When will we start directing our effort towards solutions that might actually improve our lives and do things smarter and better for the environment?
The socialist “may”, to be read as “almost certainly won’t”.
How many climates are there? What about the mini climates and the micro climates that surround us?….don’t those climates matter too?
Excerpt from the paper:
Marine ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented warming and acidification caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Reviewers comment:
Total bullsh!t.
Yes, total BS. The alarmists have to lie about everything in an effort to push this climate change scam on the rest of us.
From: Allan MacRae
Sent: September-01-21 11:12 AM
To: Benny Peiser; Lord Nigel Lawson; Christopher Monckton; Rupert Darwall; John Constable; Ralph Alexander; David Whitehouse
Subject: RE: Green Europe faces gas shortages and energy crisis as winter looms
Hi Benny and colleagues at the GWPF and thank you for your tireless work on behalf of us all.
I agree with your assessment “Green Europe faces gas shortages and energy crisis as winter looms”
GWPF Energy, 1 September 2021
I predicted this specific outcome as early as 2013 in my open letter to Baroness Verma, below, and in other publications dating from 2002.
Best regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/28/silent-summer-august-snowfall-in-austria-with-more-forecast-to-come-over-coming-days-winter-feeling/#comment-3330806
I think this Winter in Europe, Asia and North America will be very cold, and my following prediction from 2013 will begin.
Extreme cold events are already happening in the Southern Hemisphere and, to a less extreme extent, in the Northern Hemisphere.
Regards, Allan
________________________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma, October 31, 2013, by Allan MacRae
[excerpt]
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
“Turning and tuning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…” Yeats
________________________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/#comment-2835920
Well, there is the perfect Trifecta – my work here is done:
In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Allan MacRae published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-63579
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013, or earlier:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/study-predicts-the-sun-is-headed-for-a-dalton-like-solar-minimum-around-2050/#comment-1147149
[excerpt]
________________________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/04/the-climate-propaganda-cabal/#comment-3239959
My next update of this paper will be published soon. Note the close link between the twin frauds of Climate and Covid – as many have observed. Download update 1d here:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1d-readonly.docx
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A CLIMATE, ENERGY AND COVID PRIMER FOR POLITICIANS AND MEDIA
By Allan M.R. MacRae, May 4, 2021 UPDATE 1e
[excerpt]
This treatise was originally sent to Canadian and American politicians and the media in March 2021. Most of them won’t understand it, because they have no scientific competence and have been utterly duped – programmed for decades by false climate scares and green energy frauds.
This update was written in May 2021 to report even more global cooling as measured by satellites and new harsh cold events, particularly in Europe and North America that have severely harmed early crops. Harsh cold events have struck all countries in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
…
THE GREENS’ PREDICTIVE CLIMATE AND ENERGY RECORD IS THE WORST
The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.
Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction and nobody should believe them.
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
…
THE COVERT EXTREME-LEFT POLITICAL AGENDA – WHY NOW?
Global politics has now become toxic and unhinged, with the extreme-left panicking, and trying to force the neo-Marxist Great Reset on us all.
WHY NOW? Because solar-driven global cooling is upon us, and the fraud of catastrophic human-caused global warming is about to be exposed to even the most obtuse of humanity.
The Situation Assessment is summarized below – its perpetrators are among the most deceitful scoundrels on Earth, and to date they are succeeding.
For decades, climate skeptics have been correctly arguing that the science of the global warming extremists was wrong, but it was never about the science – it was always a fraud – a false scheme concocted for political and financial gain.
People give the warmist cabal too much credibility – false alarm is their tactic – the climate alarmist leaders know they are lying – they’ve known it all along.
From: Benny Peiser [mailto:xxxxx]
Sent: September-01-21 9:08 AM
To: xxxxxxx
Subject: Green Europe faces gas shortages and energy crisis as winter looms
Told you so, 8 years ago. See my above post.
https://electroverse.net/larry-delivers-record-smashing-summer-snow-to-greenland-lives-at-stake-in-european-gas-shortage/
“LIVES AT STAKE” IN EUROPEAN GAS SHORTAGE
A senior US energy adviser warned that “lives are at stake” in Europe this winter as the continent approaches the season with low gas reserves and the threat of reduced supply, reports the ft.com — and this is in a world of ‘catastrophic global warming’, where heating your home in winter should be a lot easier given the magical CO2 blanketing effect. Never forget that the original global warming theory, upon which the failed polices we are living with today were formed, stated that planet earth would suffer linearly rising temperatures and no more snow (check the old IPCC reports).
“ Between 35.6% and 95%”
Lol
Can they make that range any larger?
Yep. …. between 10.3% and 82% it says.
The Bardar-log at it again.
That’s just as laughable – possibly a little more
I love the metaphor! Prof. Katie and colleagues throwing trash, nuts and twigs down onto us from their lofty heights! 🤓
“We all say it, so it must be true”
Bandar Log…
Just checked in The Jungle Book and it is Bandar-log.
Yep. …. between 10.3% and 82% it says.
The Bandar-log at it again.
Apologies, I have no idea why/how this appears twice. Mods please delete one and this posting.
You sneezed while submitting?
It was that carbon dioxide wot dun it.
Between -10% and 110%.
Correction please: Between -10.695% and 110.01%
How does a climate disappear? That is an absurdity, a non-sequitur.
Besides the stupid language in this hysterical publication, everybody knows that the oceans are a humongous sink for all manner of things, and does not turn on a dime as this stupid modelling exercise claims. 80 years is not even the merest blip on the timescale of how our oceans behave.
I agree. I believe that they are using “climates” to refer to the total environment of the sea surface, with pH, T, and aragonites as markers for that environment. Presumably, the earlier eras where CO2 was much higher, T was much higher and the Ocean chemistry was different from today, yet corals, shellfish and sea life survived, didn’t happen.
They don’t get to redefine climate. Climate is atmosphere, as may be affected by gazillions of things, but it still is the atmosphere.
The problem with that statement is that you are making assumptions regarding their delusional models.
Best not to go anywhere near their Confirmation Bias logic.
The Climate Change Hysterics are not very good students of history.
The Climate Change Charlatans,otoh, ignore history because history destroys their “unprecedented” claims about CO2.
“History” starts with the beginning of the Global Surface Temperature Record, anything before that never happened. I prefer to take the exact opposite view, the history of this planet is long, possibly even infinite (the “Big Bang Theory” is still just a theory, there may be other explanations on how this Universe commenced) and therefore anything we experience today, whether absolute temperatures or change of temperatures or rate of change of temperatures is all a been there done that (but if there was no t-shirt it didn’t happen?) and we are only going through it again. We’ll come out on the other side just as this world did in the past and everything will still be just fine.
Northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, 23 nuclear tests with a total yield of 76.3 megatons (TNT equivalent) were conducted across seven test sites located either on the reef, on the sea, in the air and underwater between 1946 and 1958.
After less than 50 years, a survey found a total of 183 scleractinian coral species were recorded, compared to 126 species recorded in the pre-bomb study.
Studies have shown earth’s corals to be able to cope with climate-induced warmings as well as coolings. In a study of patch reefs of the Florida Keys, for example, Greenstein et al. (1998) found that Acropora cervicornis corals exhibited “long-term persistence” during both “Pleistocene and Holocene time,” the former of which<b> periods exhibited climatic changes of large magnitude, some with significantly greater warmth than currently prevails on earth;</b> and these climate changes had almost no effect on this long-term dominant of Caribbean coral reefs. Hence, there is good reason to not be too concerned about long-term changes in climate possibly harming earth’s corals. </i>
An unofficial spokesman for the Allied Coral Species Association is thought to have stated – We have survived nuclear war, climate temperature changes of over 10 degrees, planetary magnetic shifts, CO2 levels of 15,000 PPM, giant undersea lava flows and plate tectonics for over 400 million years. We are personally more worried about you.
Cute. They have two scenarios, one unlikely and the other effectively impossible.
“caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide”
Still waiting for some proof of the cause. Not someone’s opinion, but some hard proof that can be tested and tested.
A warming of 0.03C is going to cause the fish to cook in place.
C’mon man, it’s called sushi.
Sushi is just not cooked 😀
I beg to differ. I’ve had cooked sushi before. The rice is the ingredient that gives it the name, not the raw fish.
Exactly, getting it outta the fridge will warm it up more as it’s sliced and passed over to the customer at the sushi bar.
I’m still amazed that anyone will believe that a change in average temperature will affect anything when said change was already exceeded between sunrise and sunset yesterday.
This is absurd!
Climates don’t “disappear”. They may change over very long periods of time, certainly not over a mere 80 years as claimed by these numbnuts. The ocean is in fact a humongous sink of everything, including heat energy, carbon, sediments, etc. It does not turn on a dime.
And you don’t get to redefine “climate” to whatever you narrowly purport to claim. Climate is climate – it is a function of temperature and wind directions and speed. Everything else is derived from temp and wind.
Absurd is as absurd does
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire
I’m noted for my atheism
Those who believe in nothing, will fall for anything.
There are quite a few atheists who believe absurd things.
Everything is possible considering the state of education in our schools today.
“The authors compared these modelled climates across various locations using two emission scenarios, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. ”
I stopped reading…
A reputable researcher would not use RCP8.5.
An 8.5 pound block of Oak wood makes a nice door stop.
Burn RCP8.5 on the top and it makes a nice conversation starter.
“A reputable researcher would not use RCP8.5.”
They ought to use the Russian model.
Does anyone here have access to the model programs? I think it would be interesting to see the results if everything to do with carbon dioxide was taken out of them.
Boogieman!!!
Boogieman!
Boogieman.
Boogieman?
Anybody out there???
Aragonite is the calcium carbonate mineral which shelled sea critters generate. These sea critters have been forming aragonite shells for 500 million years, in ocean temperatures from freezing to 40 deg C. Now a modeling study says “never mind history and biology the world is going to end because Mr. Long drives an SUV?”. Remember aragonite is a poorly organized crystalline structure in that it admits odd-sized cations into its crystal structure, like selenium, barium, phosphorous, and others. Under the pressure and temperature of burial the aragonite re-crystallizes to calcite, which is much more ordered and therefore expels the odd-sized cations. No known temperature (acidity?), or salinity change is going to cancel aragonite.
What?!!!Surely you aren’t claiming that the entire planet and all its systems is not controlled by a single, simple thermostat, called “atmospheric CO2”?
Everybody knows that there is no such thing as a complex system of systems. Everything is easy and simple!
”Everything looks simple when you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Words to live by.
“Now a modeling study says “never mind history and biology the world is going to end because Mr. Long drives an SUV?”.”
Yes, that’s what they are saying, more or less.
The alarmists think we are all stupid.
So the IPCC models have taken over from zero trends from 1800AD? Is that right? I do recommend reading Donna Laframboise on the IPCC’s lies and dishonesty.
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
Donna Laframboise
https://www.amazon.ca/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q
“…shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC” – Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC
Modeled nonsense. Proofs:
The ocean surface temperature varies from 0C to about 30C, and for various reasons (convective thunderstorms) cannot go higher. So that temperature range. will not change under any RCP scenario. And organisms will find that temp to which they are accustomed.
So the sea surface climate ‘extinctions’ must relate to carbonate chemistry (aragonite clue). The old ocean ‘acidification’ bogeyman without using the words. BUT oceans are highly buffered, so even with a doubling of CO2 the pH change is less than 0.2, as explained in essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke. In most ocean, the diurnal and seasonal pH changes regularly exceed that. (The essay illustrated the PacificOcean). So there can be zero ocean surface climate ‘extinctions’. ZERO. The abstract claims are utter NonScience.
Actually, if you read the original research paper, they have some color graphs that demonstrate the 30 deg C upper limit very clearly, although they don’t acknowledge it.
Overall, the only really obvious changes in the future they demonstrate are a result of the improbable RCP-8.5 scenario.
“The abstract claims are utter NonScience.”
Thanks for summing that up nicely, Rud.
I wonder how many headlines I will read today spreading this latest climate change lie? Probably more than one.
The Climate Change propaganda machine is in high gear. Any scare story like this now gets massive coverage in the news. They are working hard to fool and scare as many people as possible.
RCP8.5 is still being the money machine for researchers everywhere to ride the Climate Scam gravy train to publication success.
Prostitution found a new home in Climate Science. The client can get whatever outcome they are prepared to pay for. This sort of report is no different to other manufactured goods.
I agree with both of you.
A typical case of understanding nothing, but projecting everything. It would be giant leap for “climate science” if they at least learned about ocean surface emissivity, which happens to be 0.91, rather than 1 or 0.99, figures erroneously assumed. It has serious consequences both on the understanding of the GHE, as well as climate models.
https://greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth
Judging by what I have read, you have the skills to do so. Excel supports complex arithmetic. However, to avoid mistakes, and to be able to de-bug errors, I broke the process up into multiple steps, which results in a page of columns that one has to scroll across. I then use another page to present the results for all angles of incidence between 0 and 90, and for unpolarized incident light, represented as a polarized ray with a polarization azimuth of 45 degrees. It is challenging, but probably something you can handle.
However, to be thorough, just dealing with the water isn’t sufficient. For deep water, there may be plankton floating below the surface, which diffusively (not specularly) reflects back green light. In shallow water there may be algae and suspended sediment, which also reflect back green and brown (red & yellow) light. For very shallow water (such as around the Bahamas), water from the bottom will be reflected back out. (That is, all the light that penetrates the surface of the water is not absorbed!) This has to be added to the reflected sunlight from the surface of the water, which changes from a predominantly blue color at nadir observations, to essentially the same spectral distribution of sunlight at the surface (green minus some blue) for light glancing the surface of the water. It might be difficult to find the complex refractive index for the suspended organics and sediment across the thermal IR region. There are spectral libraries of reflectance for minerals in the near IR and thermal region, but they would need to be inverted to obtain the complex refractive index containing the extinction coefficient. That is something I haven’t mastered yet!
There are a lot of details to be addressed to get more than a first-order approximation.
Good Luck!
Sure, but keep in mind shallow waters are the exception, not the rule. Then there is something which can easily be verified with your own eyes: the ocean is extremely dark! For instance there are pictures of the open sea and those segment which are more directed towards the observer, due to waves, look dark blue or almost black. That is despite they still reflect light from the much brighter sky at the surface.
The fact that the ocean appears much darker than the sky is also significant in another way. If you look at pictures from the DSCOVR satellite, where you see Earth & Moon in the same frame, you can make some simple comparisons. The clear sky ocean appears roughly half as bright as the moon, with an albedo of ~0.12. Most of that light must be coming from the atmosphere, not the water. Then the water surface itself is reflecting the sky, meaning there will not remain much “margin” for raleigh scattered light from underneath the water line. Then there are waves, gusts, the “cool skin” effect and so on, making things quite complicated indeed. Next we have little or no information on other surface types in the far-IR.
But we need to put this into perspective. In “climate science” we have the stupid surface emissivity = 1 narrative. And if someone bothers what the emissivity of water might be, they look up satellite measurements done from the zenith within the atmospheric window, and conclude it is 0.99 or so, nothing to care about. Relative to the status quo of “climate science”, 0.91 is a quantum leap.
What the ocean looks like is dependent on the angle of incidence of sunlight, one’s viewing angle, and whether or not one is looking in the direction of the sun. Your graphic demonstrates that, but I sense that you have not assimilated it internally. Consider what the situation will be like if you are on the beach in California, near sunset, and looking towards the sun, versus being in a boat off shore, looking towards the beach.
See this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
The graphics may not show unless you refresh the screen.
As I thought the comment made clear, I was referring to the light reflected from below the surface with deep waters.
Most of the oceans are deep, but not all:
Since El Niño’s seem to contribute to step ups in ocean/global temperatures, it appears one isn’t going to show up relatively soon. With sea ice building in both poles and the source of the warm water waning in the mid latitude Pacific, we might be in for a downright cold period, certainly over the next few years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-sub%E2%80%93surface
Meh, I’m not going to climb on any bandwagons here. As wonky as the global temperatures are from year to year, you won’t be able to see any clear trends until you’re 5 years or more down the road looking back.
How does utter drivel like this get published? Every time I think that climate alarmists have reached the absolute low in scientific integrity, they prove me wrong.
“Unprecedented Warming” — ha ha. They can’t even answer this one simple question … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6rAWcjTyw
And if you extrapolate february to august temperature trends, we will all boil to death by december.
Not in the southern hemisphere. We’ll freeze!
It would be more believable if they said more than 100%.
So the Obama’s daughters & their progeny will only just swim in their pool at their seaside Big House. They can still watch the motion of the ocean, hit the bong, avoid sea spray getting in their hair, crank up the bass on big outdoor speakers and mime the best rap video hand gestures while the younger enjoy the privilege of twerking.
Whatever you have been watching you might consider stopping it before it’s too late.
I’ve been watching young people walking around the streets weaving their hands about while wearing Beats headphones & news casts of adults twerking on parked municipal vehicles in the USA.
Yeah, and I may win the Powerball lottery in its next drawing . . but I don’t get overly excited about using that term “may”.
It’s an all-too-obvious means for one to hedge his/her bets about making the most ridiculous statements. And it’s seen far too often these days.
These people need help, not publicity.
Desperate stuff. Time for a little introspection (“Am I that much of a w&nker? Really?”) over the morning porridge.
This is totally fracking retarded…
Nothing is going to “disappear”… Some things will change… Because they have always been changing and won’t stop changing even if we choose to bankrupt ourselves and starve to death, while freezing in the dark, in a futile effort to save the ocean surface climates.
Let’s just say that we manage to push CO2 up to 2,000 ppm and it causes the average surface pH of the oceans down to where it likely was in the Paleogene.
We’ll have an aragonite saturation similar to the Paleogene. If CO2 is the “be all, end all” driver they claim it is, we’ll have ocean surface climates that existed before. If they continue to be 97% wrong about everything, we’ll have ocean surface climates very similar to today.
None of those bad things happened during the Holocene Optimum when temperatures were at least 3C to 5C warmer than they are today.
It was only 0.5 to 1.5° C warmer globally during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. It might have been 3 C warmer globally during the Eemian and >5 °C warmer in the Eemian Arctic. CO2 was lower during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is now and probably much lower than it was during the Paleogene.
CO2 has a far more significant effect on marine geochemistry than it does on atmospheric temperature.
CO2 affects surface pH, although not as much as they claim. More significantly, it affects aragonite saturation. Aragonite is the big one regarding “ocean surface climate” as they describe it. Aragonitic oceans, like we have today, are not common in the geologic record.
If they’re right (highly unlikely), we’ll have “ocean surface climates” like the Paleogene.
If they’re mostly wrong (very likely), we’ll have “ocean surface climates” only slightly different than today.
How did they get three significant digits on these percentages? Seems fishy to me.
Simple. Models can produce as many ‘significant digits’ as you program them for. Now whether they are correctly ‘significant’ is a different question.
Yes, silly me.
Well, you’re sorta right. I would say you can get as many digits to the right of the decimal as you tell it to print out. Doesn’t mean they mean anything.
This study would have been of som interest if they had done their comparisons with:
1. The Mid-Holocene optimum 6-8,000 years ago
2. Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago
3. The previous interglacial (MIS 5e) 125,000 years ago
They would have found that their precious ocean climates are constantly going extinct and coming back from extinction.
This study suffers from what might be called the Nirvana Fallacy, the idea that everything was static for ever and ever before the Industrial Revolution, and that organisms were then perfectly adapted to their environment and have no ability whatsoever to adapt to changing conditions.
As a matter of fact there are almost no living things on this planet that can´t cope with large and abrupt climate changes, for the simple reason that no organisms without this ability has a chance to survive a single glacial cycle, much less the about 40 such cycles the last 2.5 million year.
The really funny thing is that the only marine calcifier that struggled to flourish in laboratory experiments which rapidly (~60 days) altered the ocean surface climate to >1,000 ppm CO2 conditions was the soft clam, Mya arenaria,…
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/slideheaven-com_mya-arenaria-an-ancient-invader-of-the-north-sea-c.pdf
Reality says that soft clams can survive damn near anything.
I don’t even understand the terminology: what the heck is an ocean surface climate, how does it differ from a land surface climate, and are there atmospheric, subsurface, and subterranean climates?
And how the heck does any climate “disappear”? Sure, you could fill a cave and its climate would disappear as it disappeared, I suppose; but that seems to imply the only way to disappear an ocean surface climate is to either cover the entire ocean in saran wrap so it has no surface, or evaporate the ocean.
I skimmed the rest and came up with just the usual jargon soup meant to get a grant.
I had the same reaction, WTF is a ocean surface climate? These people are nutters hoping to be able to feed at the trough before it all blows up. And with output like this article, they deserve to get blown up sooner than later! Climates just do not disappear! There is usually only slight variations unless said climate-affected land somehow moves to a different latitude….
What is a ‘surface climate’? wouldnt the correct term be something like biome? And I would expect those would change about every 3 months.
Is this “research” INTENDED to be some kind of joke…?
If so, bravo to the authors. You succeeded.
Additionally, 35–95% of the surface ocean is estimated to experience an extreme degree of global disappearance.
==========
95% of the oceans surface dissapears each day as it evaporates. The orher 5% is covered in ice.
“…..10–82% of the surface ocean is estimated to experience an extreme degree of global novelty…. we calculated the degree of global novelty or disappearance….. We estimate the degree of global novelty or disappearance using the Mahalanobian dissimilarity metrics developed by Mahony et al.30. These metrics are an improvement over the standardized Euclidean distance7 because the latter is susceptible to variance inflation due to correlations in the raw variables and does not account for the effect of the number of variables on the statistical meaning of distance. [May need this statistically explained]… indicating that our novelty projections for tropical regions (which are already quite large) may be underestimated. Conversely, we found that variation in field station measurements of both SST and pH was higher in the temperate zone (represented by Maine and New Hampshire) than at similar latitudes.” [ok now I understand]
From Merriam Webster—
Novely- 3– a small manufactured article intended mainly for personal or household adornment.
Yep, saw a fisheries paper quite a while back with a similar % spread, language always gives it away. What I find consistent, maybe sad, is how many papers are negative despite their caveats. One recently examined was about food web disruption, actually showed realignment, but end of paper concluded it bad.
This nonsense actually gets funded? They should as for their money back.
This nonsense makes a good headline in the newspaper, and the producer of the nonsense gets paid for it.
Too bad we can’t get paid for debunking such nonsense. We do it for free. Why? Somebody has to do it.
While RCP 8.5 has been called “Business As Usual,” more than one researcher has demonstrated that it is highly improbable, based on the reserves of fossil fuels. RCP 4.5 runs warm compared to historical temperature records.
“More acidic pH” is an oxymoron. For a state of being to increase in abundance, it has to first exist. The phrase is logically and grammatically similar to talking about a man becoming “more pregnant.” Aqueous solutions can have three states: alkaline, neutral, or acidic. The oceans are alkaline, and probably always will be. It is improbable that the bulk ocean pH will ever even be neutral, let alone acidic. (Except locally, like around Black Smokers.) “Ocean Acidification” is a gross misappropriation of a term derived from chemistry.
“…, and lower saturation of aragonite. Aragonite is a mineral that corals and other marine organisms use to form shells.”
The article implies that calcifiers use the mineral aragonite as ‘building blocks’ in their shells. They actually expend energy to change the pH at the growth edge of their shells, and create aragonite or calcite from the dissolved bicarbonate. Once grown, the organisms usually cover the mineral growth with mucous, chitin, or both, to resist corrosion. When they die, the bare mineral is then subject to dissolution at the Aragonite Compensation Depth, when it sinks.
“…, 35.6% of surface ocean climates may disappear by 2100, ,,,” It has been said that the universal language of science is mathematics. What is the probability of “may,” and what are the error bars associated with the estimate?
There are good reasons to believe that there are emergent phenomena in the tropics (As demonstrated by Willis Eschenbach) that serve as negative feedback loops, stabilizing the temperatures. The upper limit of SST in the tropics is even illustrated in the main research article. That is to say, there may be little need for tropical organisms to migrate because they have adapted to one of the more stable climates. It is more likely that they will just expand their territory into the mid-latitudes. The only obvious projected changes are associated with the discredited RCP 8.5.
All modeling should be verified by empirical data obtained in the field. Unfortunately, it seems that far too many young academics have grown up with video games and accept, unquestionably, the results of computer program outputs.
Were it not for COP-26 scheduled for November, we would probably be spared such shoddy ‘scholarship’ as this article!
acidification gives away the pseudo science …
I hate “acidification” articles. You know before you read them that they are going to be all lies and distortions. Just like this one.
I just read the headline and thought this must be urethra alert BS.
Not even griff is going to touch this.
So, they are claiming the oceans are going to evaporate? Or are they claiming aliens will come to Earth and steal our oceans? What a bunch of lie spewing f**ktards.
I saw that movie, two of them in fact.
Aliens after our oceans
Great fun
Meaningless tho, like this paper
Every time I see that story line my first thought is why not just get what ya need from atmospheres of Saturn and Jupiter, not the bottom of a gravity well.
Not disappear as in an abortive process, but change as in climate as in weather as in evolution within, thankfully, a limited, habitable range.
What a STOOOOPID paper that is, I wonder if the people who wrote this nonsense are self aware at all since they don’t seem to realize that they made a complete fool of themselves.
“Katie Lotterhos and colleagues modelled ocean climates globally for three time periods: … using two emission scenarios, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5.”
It is not a “Scientific Report” it is a report of a video game. Mathematical onanism. If they son’t stop, they will go blind.
If they do stop they will go broke.
They compared different sets of models so they must be right.
They purposely excluded RCP 2.6 because they didn’t expect to find any publishable results.
Today’s ocean “Climates” certainly didn’t exist during the last glaciation…nor even during the Little Ice Age (coldest era of the Holocene)…nor during the Holocene Optimum only 8000 years ago (and at least 2°C warmer than now).
The Climate changes. But it won’t change as fast as RCP 4.5 indicates…let alone RCP 8.5. Only a radically wrong reading of the evidence supports those radical scenarios.
150 years of Tidal Guage data indicate a nice steady warming over that whole period. From a climatic perspective (i.e. hundreds of years resolution), the oceans are a perfectly reliable thermometer. Until proven otherwise, whatever initiated the ocean (global) warming 150 years ago is still operating. In Climate and in statistics, trends matter…assigning new causes in middle of an uninterrupted steady linear trend requires a lot of strong evidence. So far we have no evidence for the CO2 theory; models are not evidence.
ocean surface climates may disappear
This must be a joke paper.
Otherwise it’s embarrassing infantile babbling.
Jabberwocky nonsense speak.
It has no discernible meaning whatsoever.
Isn’t it about time academia had some checks and balances applied to their research?
I propose ALL research papers that say this or that deleterious effect will happen by a certain date (+/- the margin of error), should have 1/5 (minimum) of their research budget held in a escrow account and repaid only if the date AND the research paper’s rational is shown to be correct.
If it fails then the researcher’s (all of them) have point score against them. 5 points against ANY researcher and their academic qualification(s) are revoked.
The pot of escrow account monies is then redistributed to the academies/researchers that have a proven track record of good research and/or predictions.
Hey guys and ladies! Forgive me for asking a question out of topic, but it’s about the Sun, and there’s a picture of the Sun for the topic thumbnail, so…
This should be quick and non-controversial; here goes.
I’ve been reading up on solar irradiance, and I’ve run across the term “Watts per square meter per nanometer” when describing the spectral irradiance of a wavelength spectrum.
What I’m wondering is, given a value of 0.0001 Watts per meter squared per nanometer” and a wavelength of 500 nanometers, does that mean the total irradiance of a square meter is 500 * 0.0001 Watts = 0.05 Watts per square meter?
And if that’s so, then how would one figure the irradiance of a range like 500-700 nanometers? Would it be (500 * 0.0001)+(501 * 0.0001) +… + (700 * 0.0001) Watts? Seems crazy.
I’ve looked around online quite a bit, but the articles advanced enough to discuss these things assume you’re already educated in the field… and I am not.
Anyway, sorry for the interruption and thanks for any kindly explanations. I don’t know any smarter group of people of which to ask questions like these.
Earthworms attack!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/earthworms-climate-change-carbon-research-1.5370724
Well, if you define ‘climate’ as ‘this patch of sea has a 17,56 C temp’ and it warms by 0.1 C, yes, that ‘climate’ is destroyed, in that location
Of course some patch north or south of that, that was colder, now got warmer, so in fact the ‘climate’ just moved, it did not get destroyed. And plants and animals move with it.
In fact all life seeks to exploit any niche it can. Just look at plants growing in the most unusual places.
And of course plants and animals adapt, so in reality, this whole study is a lie. A meaningless word salad.
More the sky is falling computer modeling. These models are so based on fairyland. Worries me when people start talking of getting rid of traditional testing methods and relying on computer modelling. I am a computer person and know you can get any answer out that you want.