Claim: Unchecked Global Emissions on Track to Initiate Mass Extinction of Marine Life


Peer-Reviewed Publication

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Ocean ecosystem
IMAGE: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS REPORTED THAT UNLESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE CURBED, MARINE BIODIVERSITY COULD BE ON TRACK TO PLUMMET TO LEVELS NOT SEEN SINCE THE EXTINCTION OF THE DINOSAURS. THE STUDY AUTHORS MODELED FUTURE MARINE BIODIVERSITY UNDER PROJECTED CLIMATE SCENARIOS AND FOUND THAT SPECIES SUCH AS DOLPHINFISH (SHOWN) WOULD BE IMPERILED AS WARMING OCEANS DECREASE THE OCEAN’S OXYGEN SUPPLY WHILE INCREASING MARINE LIFE’S METABOLIC DEMAND FOR IT. view more 
CREDIT: PHOTO BY EVAN DAVIS

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm the world’s oceans, marine biodiversity could be on track to plummet within the next few centuries to levels not seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs, according to a recent study in the journal Science by Princeton University researchers.

The paper’s authors modeled future marine biodiversity under different projected climate scenarios. They found that if emissions are not curbed, species losses from warming and oxygen depletion alone could come to mirror the substantial impact humans already have on marine biodiversity by around 2100. Tropical waters would experience the greatest loss of biodiversity, while polar species are at the highest risk of extinction, the authors reported.

“Aggressive and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are critical for avoiding a major mass extinction of ocean species,” said senior author Curtis Deutsch, professor of geosciences and the High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton.

The study found, however, that reversing greenhouse gas emissions could reduce the risk of extinction by more than 70%. “The silver lining is that the future isn’t written in stone,” said first author Justin Penn, a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Geosciences. “The extinction magnitude that we found depends strongly on how much carbon dioxide [CO2] we emit moving forward. There’s still enough time to change the trajectory of CO2 emissions and prevent the magnitude of warming that would cause this mass extinction.”

Deutsch and Penn, who initiated the study when both were at the University of Washington, combined existing physiological data on marine species with models of climate change to predict how changes in habitat conditions will affect the survival of sea animals around the globe over the next few centuries. The researchers compared their model to the magnitude of past mass extinctions captured in the fossil record, building on their earlier work that linked the geographic pattern of the End-Permian Extinction more than 250 million years ago — Earth’s deadliest extinction event — to underlying drivers, namely climate warming and oxygen loss from the oceans.

The researchers found that their model projecting future marine biodiversity, the fossil record of the End-Permian Extinction, and indeed the distribution of species that we see now follow a similar pattern — as ocean temperature increases and oxygen availability drops, there is a pronounced decrease in the abundance of marine life.

Water temperature and oxygen availability are two key factors that will change as the climate warms due to human activity. Warmer water is itself a risk factor for species that are adapted for cooler climates. Warm water also holds less oxygen than cooler water, which leads to more sluggish ocean circulation that reduces the oxygen supply at depth. Paradoxically, species’ metabolic rates increase with water temperature, so the demand for oxygen rises as the supply decreases. “Once oxygen supply falls short of what species need, we expect to see substantial species losses,” Penn said.

Marine animals have physiological mechanisms that allow them to cope with environmental changes, but only up to a point. The researchers found that polar species are more likely to go globally extinct if climate warming occurs because they will have no suitable habitats to move to. Tropical marine species will likely fare better because they have traits that allow them to cope with the warm, low-oxygen waters of the tropics. As waters north and south of the tropics warm, these species may be able to migrate to newly suitable habitats. The equatorial ocean, however, is already so warm and low in oxygen that further increases in temperature — and an accompanying decrease in oxygen — might make it locally uninhabitable for many species.

The researchers report that the pattern of extinction their model projected — with a greater global extinction of species at the poles compared to the tropics — mirrors the pattern of past mass extinctions. A study Deutsch and Penn published in Science in 2018 showed that temperature-dependent increases in metabolic oxygen demand — paired with decreases in oxygen availability caused by volcanic eruptions — can explain the geographic patterns of species loss during the End-Permian Extinction ago, which killed off 81% of marine species.

The new paper used a similar model to show that anthropogenic warming could drive extinctions from the same physiological mechanism at a comparable scale if warming becomes great enough, Penn said. “The latitude pattern in the fossil record reveals the fingerprints of the predicted extinction driven by changes in temperature and oxygen,” he said.

The model also helps resolve an ongoing puzzle in the geographic pattern of marine biodiversity. Marine biodiversity increases steadily from the poles towards the tropics, but drops off at the equator. This equatorial dip has long been a mystery — researchers have been unsure about what causes it and some have even wondered whether it is real. Deutsch and Penn’s model provides a plausible explanation for the drop in equatorial marine biodiversity — the oxygen supply is too low in these warm waters for some species to tolerate.

The big concern is that climate change will make large swathes of the ocean similarly uninhabitable, Penn said. To quantify the relative importance of climate in driving extinctions, he and Deutsch compared future extinction risks from climate warming to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on current threats to various marine animals. They found that climate change currently affects 45% of the marine species at risk of extinction, but is only the fifth-most important stressor after overfishing, transportation, urban development and pollution.

However, Penn said, climate change could soon eclipse all of these stressors in importance: “Extreme warming would lead to climate-driven extinctions that, near the end of the century, will rival all current human stressors combined.”

The paper, “Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming,” was published April 29 in Science. The work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (OCE-1737282), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NA18NOS4780167), California SeaGrant and Ocean Protection Council, and the UW Program on Climate Change.


JOURNAL

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.abe9039 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Apr-2022

From EurekAlert!

###

And this is Rud’s take.

Ridiculous New Alarm—Climate Caused Mass Ocean Extinction!!

Rud Istvan

I was reading the electronic news today and spotted a Google News synopsis of a WaPo piece wailing about a new paper today (April 28, 2022) in Science, “Avoiding Ocean Mass Extinction from Climate Warming” by two Princeton ‘researchers’. This post is in three parts: what the WaPo reported, what the  paper abstract said (the rest is paywalled), and what the SI shows is going on.

WaPo

“One third of all marine animals will be extinct in 300 years, new research shows.” (The horror…)

“The new biological and climate models were tested by simulating the Permian extinction.” (So they must be right.)

“The climate models predict species behavior (like extinction) based on simulated organism types.” (Climate models of simulated organisms, sure.)

Paper Abstract

“Global warming threatens marine biota with losses of unknown severity. Here we quantify global and local extinction risks in the ocean across a range of climate futures on the basis of the ecophysiological limits of diverse animal species and calibration against the fossil record. With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, species losses from warming and oxygen depletion alone (poster comment—the thesis is warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen (true) so hypoxia is an extinction mode) become comparable to current direct human impacts (IUCN red list, 89% of marine species NOT threatened at all) within a century AND culminate in a mass extinction rivaling those in Earth’s past.”

Associated Science editor comment: “A stark future for ocean life.”

OK, so the WaPo was actually reasonably reporting on Science hyperventilation. They may even have got the ‘1/3 in 300 years’ from the body of the paper I chose not to read after reviewing the SI. Just shows the alarmist echo chamber.

SI

This is always a good skeptic cheapskate trick, since it is never paywalled and often reveals ‘dirty secrets’ not in the paper itself. As here, excerpted after downloading it.

The climate models used were 16 from CMIP5 and CMIP6. The global warming scenario in both was of course the physically impossible RCP8.5.

The ‘ecophysiotypes’ were based on warm water and hypoxia tolerance across several different orders of marine organisms including bony fishes, cephalopods, bivalves… They were estimated in figure S3, with the following R^2: 0.08, 0.08, 0.21, 0.03, 0.08, 0.05. In other words, just statistical junk ‘ecophysiotypes’.

The SI has the RCP8.5 models warming the ocean upper 500 meters by 2300 a stunning 5C on average (!!, SI figure S8), resulting in an O2 loss of about 30%. The problem is, 30% oxygen depletion isn’t close to marine hypoxia.

The best of all (sarcasm) was how they validated all this by showing they could simulate the Permian extinction (when almost 90 percent of marine organisms went extinct). I have done considerable research on the Permian extinction. It was almost certainly caused by the vast Siberian Traps flood basalt eruptions lasting almost 1 million years. This released vast amounts of SO2, which cooled the atmosphere but grossly acidified the oceans on washout. The eruptions were also through vast Siberian coal deposits, causing them to burn and release enormous quantities of CO2 to warm the atmosphere. We know this from coal ash deposits from the period in Chinese lakebeds. Now, the SO2 and CO2 would have offset some in the atmosphere, but NOT in the oceans. Which is why the Permian extinction was most severe on marine life, not terrestrial plant and animal life.

So these Princeton folks claimed to be able to simulate that and match the Permian fossil record using their CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models, using their statistically dodgy ‘ ecophysiotypes’. But their SI graphical evidence in support of this claim simply does not do so. Nor could it ever have. As SI figure 1a and 1B amply demonstrate.

5 10 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 28, 2022 6:20 pm

Anyone using RPC8.5 is labeling their study “ You know perfectly well we are lieing, and you should accept our noble cause corruption”.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 28, 2022 6:25 pm

As soon as I saw the word modeled — I stopped reading.

John Hultquist
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 28, 2022 8:53 pm

Some models are useful.
Globes are. Monte Carlo simulations used by financial advisers are.
. . .

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
April 28, 2022 10:26 pm

And how do they know that marine life will plummet if CO2 levels increase? It must have happened in the past when CO2 levels were over 1500-3000 ppm. Way back when the Oceans were devoid of life…Oh Wait…

Last edited 25 days ago by Bryan A
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bryan A
April 29, 2022 3:16 am

CO2 is the basic building block of all life, both terrestrial and marine.
More of it means a more massive biosphere…more life, not less.

From start to finish, soup to nuts, aardvark to zebra, this article describes people who are engaged in alarmist group-think projection, not science, and certainly nothing with any predictive value.
How can people who have no handle on what is happening in the present, have any chance of correctly predicting the future?
For one thing, all of their inputs and assumptions about the effects of those inputs, are wrong, as is their understanding of initial conditions (i.e., the present)

The oceans are warming a whole little.
More CO2 will mean more oxygen being released by phytoplankton and other marine photosynthetic life.

I am trying to understand the leap from warmer water holding less oxygen, to extinction?
How much warmer?
Over what portions of the ocean?
How hot does water have to be before it is “hypoxic”?
The answer is…a lot!
There is no place where marine life cannot live because the water is too warm to hold oxygen!
Not even at hydrothermal vents!
The warmest ocean water besides for such places as volcanic vents, is in the tropics, and life there does just fine with water as warm as ocean water ever gets.

I keep coming to passages in this article that make no sense, like this:
Warm water also holds less oxygen than cooler water, which leads to more sluggish ocean circulation that reduces the oxygen supply at depth.”

Less oxygen makes ocean currents more sluggish?
What?
How?
We know damn well that the Earth has been much warmer than it is now for nearly all of Earth history, and so this general agreement and head nodding that human caused warming will lead to mass extinction is simply pure bullshit.
It is not even valid speculation…it is an assertion disproven by all of Earth history!

DMacKenzie
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 28, 2022 9:02 pm

John, we often see those words in WUWT comments, but models are a simplification of reality to test a hypothesis, and are sometimes very useful depending on whether they get the right answer. In this case, they seem to have confirmation bias issues…..

Redge
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 28, 2022 9:46 pm

Perhaps we need to insert the word “unvalidated”?

Reply to  Redge
April 29, 2022 6:37 pm

Untested, not validated, unverified, uncertified…

In other words, their model is just like other irrational alarmist climate models.

I’ve met/seen better piles of crap behind barns. At least, those piles were useful.

Murph
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 29, 2022 12:05 am

I must disagree. A model does not test an hypothesis, at best it can demonstrate the hypothesis. Testing requires observation, not simulation of possible scenarios as interpreted by a computer programmer. The only thing a computer model validates is the ability of the developer to meet the design parameters.

rah
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 29, 2022 5:26 am

I’m sure that computer models are practically useful in some fields of science, but for climate modelers that start with the assumption that CO2 is bad and drives weather and climate, they are nothing but tools of propaganda.

The greatest explosion of marine life in the fossil record occurred during the Ordovician through Silurian periods during which atmospheric CO2 levels ran over 4,500 and never dropped below 3,000 ppm.
(As high as 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian).

The fossils of the first jawed fish and many other orders of marine life like hard corals and sponges first appear in the rocks from that roughly 1 million year span of time.

So why would anyone believe this modeled junk?

Reply to  rah
April 29, 2022 9:24 am

Ditto.

Redge
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 28, 2022 9:44 pm

I stopped after

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm

G Mawer
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 28, 2022 10:32 pm

Worse yet, a “study” based on “models” “could” “if”…….????

Slowroll
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 29, 2022 9:05 am

I was about to post the same thing, but you beat me to it. Models, models, models…we should dismantle modern life and go back to horse apples in the streets because of models. To paraphrase Casey Stengel–can’t anyone here play this game? In the case of the climastrologists, the “game” being reality.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 28, 2022 7:34 pm

“As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm the world’s oceans …”

This is the sentence that made the rest moot.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 28, 2022 8:49 pm

Yeah as it is stooopid since the ocean is already packed with CO2 in it far more than in the atmosphere and that most of the ocean is below 40 degrees F which is quite cool.

b.nice
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 28, 2022 9:06 pm

““As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm the world’s oceans …””

Yep, its a totally anti-science grab line to get the article noticed.

It is not based on any known science.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 29, 2022 3:38 am

Exactly.
In fact, this article is chock-a-block with assertions that range from dubious to obviously wrong, supposedly logical premises that seem to be utterly illogical instead, premises that do not match up with what is actually occurring, and speculation based on what we know to be tiny variations supposedly leading to catastrophic effects.

Let’s not forget for an instant what the real situation is: We are in a 8000 year long cooling trend at the tail end of an interglacial period of the ongoing Late Quaternary Ice Age, the oceans are frigidly cold over most of their volume even at the tropics, CO2 is at the low ebb of the amount that has existed in the air for billions of years, and has only risen a little above what may be extinction of complex life causing low levels, It has been warmer than now over the past hundred years, thousand years, ten thousand years, million years, ten million years, hundred million years, billion years…and during none of those warmer times has warmth ever meant life did even slightly more poorly.
Similarly, CO2 has been higher in the past, most of the time far higher than now, and there is no sign that the increase to 400+ ppm in the span of a few decades is having any deleterious effect whatsoever. All indications are the opposite is the case, as we should expect if a limiting ingredient for life is now increasing.

CO2 has never controlled temp, it has been far warmer than now at many time scales, some of them in the recent past and lasting thousands of years, and instead of anything bad happening on account of that warmth, it seems it was not just harmless but beneficial…extremely beneficial.

All one has to do is look at how life responds to higher CO2 and more clement temperature regimes to see the obviousness of it.

All one has to do is look at the illogical of warmistas and alarmists to know they are wrong about every assertion they make, and not even maybe.

They are lying doltish grifters who have no one’s best interest in mind except their own.
They are miseducated and misguided and infected with notions of end of the world catastrophism, and so they predict doomsday.

They call for things that are more harmful, and demonstrably so, than any demonstrated harm from what they say we need to be afraid of, all while failing utterly to lay out any plans to bring about that which they say must be done. In fact they oppose what are known to be the only logical ways to reduce the molecule they think is gonna end all life.

Why should anyone not dismiss every word from them, out of hand?
They are wrong, always, about everything.
And in fact they are now becoming very dangerous.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 29, 2022 10:13 am

Exactly, co23isnotevil. The sun warms the ocean, not GHGs.

comment image

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 28, 2022 11:59 pm

Under the high-emissions scenario, global extinction risks from continued warming eventually rival the severity of past mass extinctions in the fossil record and in paleosimulations (Fig. 1B). A mass extinction in this emissions scenario is projected across all potential values of the extinction threshold except in the unlikely case that the average species can maintain a viable population in <10% of their initial habitat volume (fig. S10; 19). “

Yep, RCP8.5 science fiction at work. Exactly as the IPCC stooges intended.

Burl Henry
April 28, 2022 6:26 pm

More nonsense! The accumulation of greenhouse is responsible for ZERO warming . All of our climate is driven by varying levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, primarily from VEI4-VEI5 volcanic eruptions, and industrial activity,.

Current efforts toward net-zero will reduce dimming industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, and cause temperatures to rise, not fall as intended.

When will the “experts” wake up to these facts.

1

Mike
April 28, 2022 6:35 pm

Unchecked Global Emissions on Track to Initiate Mass Extinction of brain function

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Mike
April 28, 2022 8:44 pm

When The Team™ tells scary Climate Crisis stories, it’s time for the low-IQ True Believers™ to
shake in their boots!

rah
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 29, 2022 5:47 am

Or set themselves on fire!

Gyan1
April 28, 2022 6:37 pm

Meanwhile in the real world Phytoplankton are thriving due to higher CO2 levels. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950

Gyan1
Reply to  Gyan1
April 28, 2022 6:46 pm

“Rivero-Calle et al. show that the abundance of coccolithophores in the North Atlantic has increased by up to 20% or more in the past 50 years”

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa8026

PCman999
Reply to  Gyan1
April 28, 2022 9:21 pm

Funny how they have to start off with their faith statement, that increasing CO2 will hurt these sea creatures – and then proceed to show their results -real results, not from models – that prove the opposite of their faith, in very dramatic fashion.

Hmmm. Coccolithophores up 20% since about 1961, vegetation up 15-20% since early 70’s, while CO2 went up the same amount… 😱

Bryan A
Reply to  PCman999
April 28, 2022 10:35 pm

And just WHAT are the White Cliff’s of Dover made of?
And just WHEN we’re those sea creatures deposited?
And just WHAT was the ambient CO2 levels at the time?
And just HOW prolific was the marine biome then?

Is it College Graduates that are writing these papers or some better educated kindergarteners

Last edited 25 days ago by Bryan A
PCman999
Reply to  Bryan A
April 29, 2022 12:04 am

None of the above – the statements were written by political activists pretending to be scientists but who are only good at lying.

Disputin
Reply to  PCman999
April 29, 2022 3:01 am

Not very good at that, either.

Gyan1
Reply to  PCman999
April 29, 2022 8:33 am

Human emissions=bad appears to be a requisite to get published. Almost all climate papers have some form of that, even when the study has nothing to do with CO2.

Peter Roberts, PhD, BSc(Hons) Physics, Maths, Syst
April 28, 2022 6:55 pm

The same old nonsense about “fossil fuels causing climate change” is astounding! The atmosphere CANNOT & NEVER DID affect the climate because it’s Thermodynamically impossible!! Who the hell are these mirin’s asking? Atmospheric Adiabatic Lapse Rate categorically shows air is COLDER than earth!! Cold things CANNOT warm up warmer things..

Meab

Stupid comment, Peter. When I climb under my cold blanket I get warmer. It doesn’t transfer heat to my body, it slows the rate that heat escapes my body to the cold room. Same thing with the atmosphere – it slows the rate that heat escapes the Earth to the cold of space.

I don’t know what you earned your PhD in, but I do know it wasn’t thermodynamics.

Reply to  Meab
April 29, 2022 10:10 am

it slows the rate that heat escapes the Earth

Ceteris paribus

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 1, 2022 4:33 pm

True. But we can also observe from space that ceterus paribus (e.g. clouds) is approximately true.

Rocketscientist
April 28, 2022 7:06 pm

Pandering from the Ivy league, the horrors.
Rather shameful actually.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rocketscientist
April 29, 2022 3:58 am

I agree.
Those names used to mean something. They used to add credibility at the get go.
All that is long gone.
When people with an expensive education or advanced degrees are wrong, their station in life does not ameliorate their mistakes, it makes them worse.
They have no excuse, and it is much harder to give them any benefit of the doubt.
We can assume that some people are merely duped because they trust what other people say as being the truth, but people in these positions do not get such consideration.
We must assume that they are either fools, or liars.

Last edited 25 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 29, 2022 10:13 am

They’re poorly trained, Nicholas. They don’t understand any of the standard methods physical scientists use to calibrate instruments and evaluate the integrity of data.

And they don’t understand that engineering models cannot be used to extrapolate beyond their parametrized bounds.

They are, in short, hopelessly incompetent.

John Aqua
April 28, 2022 7:11 pm

The model predicts…….no need to read any further.

Pat from kerbob
April 28, 2022 7:24 pm

For my part I will accelerate catching and eating salmon and halibut.
If they are going extinct anyway we may as well enjoy it

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 29, 2022 2:06 am

I’m glad to see someone is taking things seriously enough to do something about it.

gowest
April 28, 2022 7:27 pm

This is true for the city of New York (and other similar cities) where the rubbish is dumped near to and toxins are end up in the sea. Don’t you wish they did proper studies on real issues. Computer modellers have such limited imaginations.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  gowest
April 29, 2022 4:01 am

No, not anymore.
Landfills are carefully engineered, sealed, lined, runoff and leachate are carefully controlled…
And little in the way of toxins make their way into landfills anymore to begin with.

CD in Wisconsin
April 28, 2022 7:29 pm

“As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm the world’s oceans….”

**********

As a non-scientist, forgive my confusion here. I always thought that, for the most part, it was the Sun that warmed the world’s oceans. If that is correct, why do the alarmists keep claiming that it is GHG’s that is doing it?

Which is it, GHGs or the Sun?

b.nice
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 28, 2022 9:12 pm

The Sun…

The only real GHG is actually H2O..

… and it mostly comes from the oceans, heated by the Sun.

Bryan A
Reply to  b.nice
April 28, 2022 10:39 pm

Guilt by Dissolution?
Guilt by Dissociation?
Guilt by Proclamation!

Last edited 25 days ago by Bryan A
b.nice
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 28, 2022 9:13 pm

ps, there is speculation, but difficult to prove, that geothermal activity also may contribute a bit.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 28, 2022 7:35 pm

From the first paragraph, in the above peer-reviewed (no less!) paper out of Princeton University (no less!):
Blah, blah, blah . . .marine biodiversity could be on track to . . . blah, blah, blah, blah

One has to admire the utility of words such as “could”, “might”, “may”,etc., that offer such an appearance of a meaningful conclusion without actually requiring any committed reasoning from the author(s) writing such . . . just handwaving instead.

Indeed, I could win the mega-millions lottery tomorrow (but do I first need to go so far as to buy a ticket?).

As to the qualifier “on track to plummet within the next few centuries”, get back to me in a century or so.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 29, 2022 4:03 am

Phrases such as “on track” are the latest in weasel words.
What is on track for real is the mentality of the cult of doomsday alarmism.

TEWS_Pilot
April 28, 2022 7:37 pm

I was going to post this meme, but it is a bit over the line, so I won’t post it.

comment image

Mike
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
April 28, 2022 8:05 pm

I’ve learned something new today!

b.nice
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
April 28, 2022 9:08 pm

Thanks, I’ll use that ! 🙂

H.R.
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
April 28, 2022 9:39 pm

Oh! Very useful in the library.

People stare disapprovingly when you shout it out loud.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
April 29, 2022 4:04 am

It is over the line…it understates the extent of the wrongness.

Phil Rae
April 28, 2022 7:43 pm

And this farcical piece of modelled doom-mongering is published in a periodical called “Science”!

That says it all, really. What a tragedy that “science”, the discipline that emerged from the Enlightenment should have become so corrupted and devalued that it’s wraith-like post-modern alter ego now contributes to the impending Endarkenment!

Philip
April 28, 2022 7:52 pm

Just need a bigger garbage can!

PCman999
April 28, 2022 7:54 pm

The first SI figure (what the hell is SI?)
shows temperature spiking right at the end of the Cretaceous. If this is the modelled result they had better go get a refund from DeVry or whatever correspondence school they went to.

The Cretaceous and Jurassic periods were up to 10°C hotter than present for over a hundred million years. It was a time of exceedingly high biodiversity and life was easy.

Only until the asteroid/comet/Deltan traps came with their doom and blocked the sun to make temperatures drop and photosynthesis difficult, did the extinction happen. That has been the accepted science for decades, though certainly other factors like disease played supporting roles. Now they are trying to brainwash us with computer models that don’t agree with reality but they still try to wave around as proof, hoping that no one pays attention to the details.

For the whole history of life on this planet, 500 or more millions of years, cold = bad, warm = good.

Please, anyone with a paleo background – was there ever an extinction caused by warmer than normal, sharply increasing temperatures? (Excepting ground zero at the comet impact).

Last edited 25 days ago by PCman999
Willem De Lange
Reply to  PCman999
April 28, 2022 8:53 pm

SI = Supplementary Information. Often contains the important details missing from actual papers in Tabloid Journals like Science

PCman999
Reply to  Willem De Lange
April 28, 2022 9:55 pm

Thank you!

John Hultquist
Reply to  PCman999
April 28, 2022 9:05 pm

From Nature; other publisher’s wording may be different.

Supplementary Information (SI) is peer-reviewed material directly relevant to the conclusion of a paper that cannot be included in the printed version for reasons of space or medium (for example, video clips or sound files).

PCman999
Reply to  John Hultquist
April 28, 2022 9:57 pm

Thank you for pointing that out, you and Willem both.
I feel stupid now, especially since I do the same thing with paywalled articles, look at the supplemental info.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  PCman999
April 29, 2022 4:08 am

Temperatures are not increasing sharply, CO2 is.
There is zero evidence that CO2 is anything but great for life.
The Earth is far too cold, being as how we are in an ice age and all…and we ought to expect that whatever caused the last bunch of interglacials to end has to be assumed to still be in play.
Obviously, whatever influences temperature is far more powerful than any tiny effect CO2 may have:

dbstealeyco2vst-1650679859.5108.png
PCman999
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 29, 2022 7:35 am

100% 👍

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  PCman999
April 29, 2022 4:12 am

The most successful part of the warmista mythology is also the one with the least evidence to recommend it: That warmer temps are bad.

No one has ever given any reason to think this is true.
It was never even debated, let alone proven by any weight of evidence or overwhelmingly convincing argumentation.

It was simply asserted, and it is contrary to what everyone has always known to be true.
And yet it has been swallowed hook line and sinker by an astounding diversity of people.

Stu
April 28, 2022 8:17 pm

Just out of interest how much have tropical waters warmed since the little ice age, or in the last 40 years or so?

Geoffrey Williams
April 28, 2022 8:36 pm

Somebody payed Princeton University to carry out this ‘study’
Hard to believe but then they are desparate . .

John Hultquist
April 28, 2022 8:55 pm

R^2: 0.08, 0.08, 0.21, 0.03, 0.08, 0.05. “

Was this published on April 1st?

b.nice
April 28, 2022 9:05 pm

The fact that CO2 actually FEEDS the marine biosphere, doesn’t appear to have occurred to them !

D’OH !!

Bryan A
Reply to  b.nice
April 28, 2022 10:42 pm

Look no further than Dover for proof of that

Peta of Newark
April 28, 2022 9:07 pm

Quote:”However, Penn said, climate change could soon eclipse all of these stressors in importance blah blah blah : “Extreme warming would lead to cli…….

What is “extreme warming

ymmv but I always understood ‘warming’ to mean = gentle/mild/benign heating

So what is this ‘extreme gentleness’?

These people need help.
The very best help for them (and the rest of us) would be them to find a Post-It note on their desks saying:
Go home and get a life

PCman999
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 29, 2022 12:15 am

Well even the alarmist way they use the term really isn’t scary, I don’t know why eco-sheep fall for it.

Extreme warming, 2°C over a 100yrs?

5°C over 100yrs?

10°C over a hundred years? Still not scared, February would still be frozen solid.

The equator wouldn’t change much at all, and the polar bears would adapt – they were brown bears only a few thousand years ago.

b.nice
April 28, 2022 9:29 pm

“One third of all marine animals will be extinct in 300 years, new research shows.””

Replaced by twice as many species. !

Bryan A
Reply to  b.nice
April 28, 2022 10:46 pm

Almost 100% of all marine life alive today will be dead in 100 years. Their grandfrys will also be dead by then and their great grandfrys won’t remember this paper

RickWill
April 28, 2022 10:22 pm

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to warm the world’s oceans,

Radiative gasses do not warm oceans. Oceans are temperature controlled and stuck between hard limits of -1.8C by sea ice formation and 30C by atmospheric ice formation. Easily observed every day of every year somewhere on the planet:
comment image

Coeur de Lion
April 28, 2022 10:35 pm

‘Greenhouse gases’ instead of ‘carbon dioxide’ – sounds more threatening.

April 28, 2022 10:40 pm

Ok, so to get this straight: the temperature drop in the Permian was modeled with a RCP8.5 temperature rise?

Bryan A
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 28, 2022 10:48 pm

And the marine sterilization is evidenced by the late Cretacious when CO2 was up to 9 times higher than today. The oceans must have been a desert

Howard Dewhirst
April 28, 2022 11:14 pm

How does CO2 warm the oceans without being noticed by balloons satellites and all those other thermometers? Does it sneak in through a back door? If so where is the door?

April 29, 2022 1:02 am

These unchecked academic emissions of dystopia are directly contradicted by the scientific record of ocean sediments and deposits. Those making these claims surely know them to be false.

Such as the white cliffs of Dover. Laid down by coccolithophores from the warm seas of the Cretaceous. These calcified plankton had their maximum peak in vibrancy and productiveness when the seas were warmest about 100 Mya – since then coccolithophores have declined in step with cooling oceans, which they do not like. (This is a very nice palaeo history of coccolithophores by Fanny Monteiro.)

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/11/coccolithophores-calcified-plankton-who-like-it-hot-and-hate-our-ice-age-cold/

Second, chemical deposits including uranium salts allow researchers to reconstruct levels of oxygenation of the deep water at the ocean floor (“bottom water”). Marcantonio et al. did this over the last 200,000 years and showed clearly that carbon dioxide is associated with the oxygenation of the bottom water – a process called ventilation. Lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were associated with more bottom water anoxia, indicated by the presence of redox-sensitive “authigenic” uranium. So the precise opposite of the made-up pseudoscience claim that rising CO2 threatens ocean oxygenation. The simple and precise opposite of the truth. Not even wrong.

It’s not hard to understand that more CO2 boosts phytoplankton photosynthesis which oxygenates seawater, including downwelled deep water.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/atmospheric-co2-is-good-for-the-deep-ocean/

So in summary, warming oceans will cause plankton to decline increase in abundance. And rising CO2 will decrease increase oxygenation in the deep ocean.

Joao Martins
April 29, 2022 2:16 am

Defund the authors, PLEASE!

Last edited 25 days ago by Joao Martins
stinkerp
April 29, 2022 2:46 am

More bush-league academics publishing papers with no supporting evidence. Just making sh#t up. Yawn. Proof that “peer review” is a joke. Why are we sending kids to be educated by these dunces?

Last edited 25 days ago by stinkerp
Michael in Dublin
April 29, 2022 4:40 am

Sadly, when I see some of the garbage certain Professors at Princeton are spouting, it makes me think of the phrase, “how the mighty are fallen.” I have great admiration of some of the earlier Princeton professors and despite some of the elderly ones today who uphold the highest standards of scholarship, it seems that these are trumped by those having the correct political and activist pedigree. But in all fairness to Princeton this has infected virtually all institutions of higher learning.

Last edited 25 days ago by Michael in Dublin
April 29, 2022 5:28 am

Why are they not telling us that the first dolls were green (Quantum Biology – 9)?

2hotel9
April 29, 2022 5:51 am

They keep trotting out this debunked bullshyte, over and over, because lies are all they have.

H. D. Hoese
April 29, 2022 6:58 am

Confirming Rud’s analysis the paper gives a—“ Related Perspective A stark future for ocean life” which is–
Perspective Oceanography
A stark future for ocean life Malin L. Pinsky and Alexa Fredston
Science • 28 Apr 2022 • Vol 376, Issue 6592 • pp. 452-453 • DOI: 10.1126/science.abo4259
“…….On page 524 of this issue, Penn and Deutsch (6) present extensive modeling to reveal that runaway climate change would put ocean life on track for a mass extinction rivaling the worst in Earth’s history. Furthermore, they reveal how keeping global warming below an increase of 2°C compared with preindustrial levels could largely prevent these outcomes.

Probably not stable model track they are on, doubt that we know enough about marine critter physiology to be so certain. Science is on a single-minded track, smells like de-railing.

Andy Pattullo
April 29, 2022 7:57 am

The “smarter” academics are those ones making predictions so far in the future the authors will be long returned to their component parts before anyone can see what nonsense it was. When did academic pursuit become a video game?

Steve Browne
April 29, 2022 8:11 am

Look Ma, I made a climate model! Now I can make predictions 300 years into the future even though I have no idea if the assumptions and theories upon which the model is based are realistic or true.

Peer reviewed means nothing anymore — as if it ever did. This model prediction stuff is not a proof in any sense of the word of any scientific hypothesis or theory nor is it testable. I wouldn’t even call it science. Academia loses all credibility associating it’s name with this kind of unscientific nonsense.

Doug
April 29, 2022 8:27 am

Once again I saved time by not reading any farther than “climate models”

PaulID
April 29, 2022 8:31 am

just seeing the word Anthropocene in those graphs invalidated them

Slowroll
April 29, 2022 9:16 am

They are using the same logic that other climastrologists used when they claimed that the heat was hiding in the ocean, when they were faced with the lack of warming.

April 29, 2022 9:54 am

So, let’s see — according to Princeton University, first author Justin Penn, and senior author Curtis Deutsch, no life could have survived the Cambrian through the Carboniferous, because the high CO₂ during those epochs would have heated the oceans and killed off all the marine life.

And whatever managed to crawl out of their holes during the Permian went extinct at the Triassic-Cretaceous boundary when CO₂ rose to killing levels again.

Life remained extinct all the way through the Miocene, but managed to re-appear during the Pliocene.

It must all be true, because the models say so.

CO₂ is no longer just the climate control knob. According to Princeton University, first author Justin Penn, and senior author Curtis Deutsch, CO₂ is now the extinction control knob.

These people are so focused on models and CO₂ that they have lost lost sight of any larger physical reality. Their brains seem enter some kind of fixed microstate. For them, CO₂ is become a kind of academic lobotomy knob.

CO2 over Geological Timescale.png
John Chassin
April 29, 2022 4:52 pm

This model assumes emissions will cause extinction in the oceans but the model obviously doesn’t take into account the extinction of man staring in 8-10 years (assuming the goalposts aren’t moved again) according to the eminent climatologist AOC. The model is, therefore, flawed.

April 29, 2022 6:31 pm

Five stars for Rud’s analysis.
Zero stars for the alleged research.

Walter Sobchak
April 30, 2022 8:28 am

METHOD OF RESEARCH: Computational simulation/modeling

Video Games. Third one today.

Folks, this is not science. It is LARPing. Ignore it.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Kevin A
April 30, 2022 9:30 am

“used a similar model” I made it that far then looked at some old Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show models for a reality check.

RevJay4
May 1, 2022 8:00 pm

The cultist alarmist clowns continue to try and blow smoke up the behinds of the non-believers with all the useless “modeling” and hyperventilating about the CO2 levels everywhere.
They have overplayed their hand and know it. Now the desperation is showing and they hope no one notices. Like the boy who cried “wolf” one too many times, most folks are not buying the hyperbole anymore.

%d bloggers like this: