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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.