By Jim Steele
All humans and animals require oxygen to live. So, to evoke public fear, headlines often claimed global warming will cause ocean life to suffocate. They evoke the true but misleading factoid that warmer water holds less oxygen. Thus, rising CO2 will cause the ocean to hold less oxygen leading to suffocation. Dishonestly, they ignore more important dynamics controlling oxygen.
As illustrated (graphic A), ocean surface temperatures reach 25°C to 30°C (red) and rapidly cool to just 5°C (blue) at 1000-meter depths. Yet in contrast to climate crisis narratives, oxygen levels (graphic B) are highest in the warm surface layers and then become severely depleted to their lowest levels at cold 1000-meter depths. Temperature is simply not the oxygen control knob.
The high concentrations of oxygen in the upper ocean layers are produced when photosynthesizing phytoplankton split water molecules. In fact, most scientists have determined that not only do phytoplankton provide oxygen for ocean life, but 50% of all the oxygen we breathe is produced by ocean phytoplankton that’s then released into the atmosphere.
The organic matter produced in the ocean’s sunlit surface layers gradually sinks. As the organic matter is consumed, oxygen is consumed, and CO2 is released. Virtually all that organic matter is consumed by the 1000-meter depths, explaining why oxygen reaches its lowest levels by 1000 meters. All that sinking matter feeds the abundant marine life in what is known as the twilight zone, the 200 to 1000-meters depths that lacks enough light for photosynthesis. Scientists now estimate that 90% of the oceans’ biomass lives and feeds in the twilight zone, fed by organic matter produced by photosynthesis in the warmest surface layer.
It has been well-proven that the increase in CO2 concentrations has increased photosynthesis, which benefits all marine life in the twilight zone. All photosynthesizing plants and algae depend on one key enzyme known as RUBISCO. RUBISCO evolved during the earth’s earliest history when the atmosphere consisted over 6000 ppm CO2 and less than 2% oxygen. Thus, RUBISCO has the ability to incorporate either oxygen, which causes detrimental photorespiration, or incorporate carbon dioxide, which makes the sugars that are the building blocks for all organic tissue. The ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide determines photosynthesis efficiency. More oxygen or less carbon dioxide depresses photosynthesis.
During the late Carboniferous and Permian periods 250 to 300 million years ago, oxygen reached its highest concentrations and carbon dioxide reached its lowest. As a result, Tropical Rainforests collapsed and there was a phytoplankton blackout driving the greatest extinctions in earth’s history.
So, the truth is: more CO2 enables more ocean photosynthesis, increases organic matter to feed marine life, while producing more oxygen that all animals need to live. But that is not the science the climate crisis grifters want you to understand.
There is indeed observed increases in oceans’ oxygen minimum zones which correlate with regions of high rigorous upwelling. The decrease in oxygen is driven by the increase in primary production due to that increased upwelling since the end of the Little Ice Age. Upwelling raises oxygen depleted, nutrient enriched, and CO2 rich deep water to the surface triggering increased photosynthesis and organic matter production in the warm surface layers. That further depletes oxygen from subsurface layers when the increasing organic matter is digested as it sinks back to lower levels.
The top illustrates the oxygen minimum zones are located where upwelling is greatest from the 2015 paper by Moffitt Paleoceanographic Insights on Recent Oxygen Minimum Zone Expansion: Lessons for Modern Oceanography The bottom illustration shows how upwelling and productivity has increased since the Little ICe Age from Chavez (2011) Marine Primary Production in Relation to Climate Variability and Change
Is there anything these self named “climate scientists” get right ?
Seems not to be the case… 😀
Good point. I cannot think of anything.
Filling out successful grant applications?
“Is there anything these self named “climate scientists” get right ?”
Utilizing the correct balance of buzzwords and alarmism to get more governmental grant money? That seems to be their core excellence.
The warmunists always claim to be in favor of “science”, then ignore science in order to make their propaganda whenever it turns out to be inconvenient.
It is all too easy to say “this one effect controls everything”, and ignoramuses believe it. Nothing in our universe is simple or non-complex, being controlled by numerous factors which either balance out making a stable situation, or is unbalanced resulting in change. CO2 is not the unitary “temperature control knob” for the atmosphere, yet CO2 has an outsized role in creating the equilibrium in atmospheric oxygen content.
CO2 emissions make the planet warmer than it would have been with no manmade CO2 emissions. Scientists got that right in 1896 and it has not been refuted in 127 years.
The people who claim consensus climate science is 100% wrong are extremists, and wrong.
They make it impossible to refute CAGW scaremongering by falsely claiming humans can not affect the climate in any way, or they know te effect, and it is tiny.
When asked to defend their claim that all, or nearly all, warming since 1975 was natural, they suddenly go silent or spout a bizarre theory such as underseas volcanoes did it..
Some conservatives won’t even admit that humans increased atmospheric CO2 about +50% since 1800.
When it comes to the most basic climate science, such as:
(1) There is a greenhouse effect
(2) Manmade CO2is part of the greenhouse effect, and
(3) Humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere in the past few hundred years
… I’m sorry to say that liberals and leftists are
more intelligent than conservatives on the most basic climate science. This is not a close call. And that is one important reason leftists are winning the climate propaganda battle.
Basic climate science has nothing to do with an imaginary climate emergencies and always wrong predictions of dangerous CAGW — they are both just propaganda.
Your 1896 reference is to Arhenius’paper?
“And that is one important reason leftists are winning the climate propaganda battle.”
I don’t think the leftists are winning the propaganda battle. They have the politicians convinced, but not the general population. Climate change is low on the list of concerns of people/voters.
The Climate Alarmists are trying everything they can think of to brainwash the Climate Change Unbelievers better. That tells me they think, deep down, that they are losing the battle.
That’s also why the Climate Crisis rhetoric has been turned up to 11. The Climate Alarmists are losing and they feel it in their bones.
If Richard Greene is referring to the 1896 paper by Svante Arrhenius, which he claims “has not been refuted in 127 years”, he may want to actually read Arrhenius’ paper, where the infrared absorption coefficients were calculated based on absorption of light from the full moon through the entire atmosphere, measured by Samuel Langley in 1890. The distribution of intensity with frequency of moonlight was unknown at the time, because the Planck distribution was developed about five years later.
Arrhenius predicted what is now known as an “equilibrium climate sensitivity” ranging from 4.95 C/doubling of CO2 concentration in the tropics to 5.7 C/doubling at high latitudes. With later improvements in the calculation of blackbody emission spectra (the Planck distribution) and more accurate IR absorption spectra, the calculated “equilibrium climate sensitivity” for dry land is 1.40 to 1.55 C/doubling, and lower over the oceans.
Arrhenius’ work has not been completely refuted, but has been found to be an over-estimate of the actual effect of increasing CO2 concentration on the climate. His work lost some credibility during the period from 1945 to 1975 when CO2 concentrations were increasing but average temperatures were decreasing.
The real debate between alarmists and “conservatives” is not over whether higher CO2 concentrations could result in slight warming of the climate, but whether this represents an existential threat to life on earth, and whether proposed “solutions” would have more harmful effects on human life than climate change itself. The alarmists tend to exaggerate the potential negative effects, and overlook the possible benefits of a warmer climate and/or higher CO2 levels, such as faster plant growth and longer growing seasons at high latitudes.
There is another reason upwellings are so phytoplankton fertile. Phytoplankton need mineral fertilizers (the usual big three NPK). Upwelling brings them into the euphotic zone where phytoplankton use them to grow.
Mixing water is very important for corals.
Antozoans are carnivores , catching prey with their tentacles. Many species supplement their energy requirements by using photosynthetic single-celled algae living in their tissues. These species live in shallow waters, and many are involved in reef building. Other species lack zooxanthellae and do not need well-lit areas; they usually live in deep-water areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthozoa
I refer the reader to my attempt to correct a BBC story on this topic:
“”only masochists ought to complain about wrong things to the BBC””
You got there in the end
The sequence of events feels like there is already Socialism at the BBC.
If only it were about science
Story tip
“”During a secret meeting of members, JSO’s top brass unveiled an ambitious new strategy to an audience of more than 100 eco-warriors.
The climate group ominously declared it wanted to bring about “regime change” via a “political revolution” and drew on the godfather of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin, for inspiration.
As part of a revamped strategy, JSO will become part of a new organisation called “Umbrella”, inspired by the Hong Kong democracy demonstrations in 2019 and 2020 where protesters used umbrellas to protect themselves from police.
Umbrella will comprise four parts: JSO; Robin Hood, demanding “economic justice”; Assemble, a group dedicated to setting up a People’s House as an alternative to the House of Commons; and Youth Demand, designed to stand up against the “twin genocides” of the climate crisis and the war in Gaza.””
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1877473/just-stop-oil-new-plans-secret-meeting
It really isn’t
“”I?t will be incredibly hard to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, end consumerism, eradicate billionaires, overhaul agriculture and strengthen our communities. But if we don’t do these things we will die, in fact, we will be killed.””
The views of overly melodramatic spoilt children.
Speaking of James Hansen, The Fraud Father…
‘The climate group ominously declared it wanted to bring about “regime change” via a “political revolution” and drew on the godfather of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin, for inspiration.’
Earth Day, aka Lenin’s birthday….
” if emissions remain high ”
These scientific terms are difficult to understand. Very confusing.
About like “if my aunt had …., etc. …, I’d have an uncle!
These days that’s two aunts or uncles
“All humans and animals require oxygen to live.”
Most Eukaryotic cells have mitochondria which also includes plants and fungi. Therefore, even green plants need oxygen–especially at night.
A simple fact.
Warmer water can dissolve more solids but less gases.
Colder water can dissolve less solids but more gases.
Cyanobacteria blooms oxygenate the surface layer of water, although some types produce toxins that are poisonous to fish and mollusks.
“In general, photosynthesis in cyanobacteria uses water as an electron donor and produces oxygen as a byproduct, though some may also use hydrogen sulfide[79] a process which occurs among other photosynthetic bacteria such as the purple sulfur bacteria.
Carbon dioxide is reduced to form carbohydrates via the Calvin cycle.[80] The large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere are considered to have been first created by the activities of ancient cyanobacteria.[81] They are often found as symbionts with a number of other groups of organisms such as fungi (lichens), corals, pteridophytes (Azolla), angiosperms (Gunnera), etc.[82] The carbon metabolism of cyanobacteria include the incomplete Krebs cycle,[83] the pentose phosphate pathway, and glycolysis.[84]
There are some groups capable of heterotrophic growth,[85] while others are parasitic, causing diseases in invertebrates or algae (e.g., the black band disease).[86][87][88]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
“Cyanobacteria are arguably the most successful group of microorganisms on earth. They are the most genetically diverse; they occupy a broad range of habitats across all latitudes, widespread in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems, and they are found in the most extreme niches such as hot springs, salt works, and hypersaline bays. Photoautotrophic, oxygen-producing cyanobacteria created the conditions in the planet’s early atmosphere that directed the evolution of aerobic metabolism and eukaryotic photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria fulfill vital ecological functions in the world’s oceans, being important contributors to global carbon and nitrogen budgets.” – Stewart and Falconer[100]
Yes, as Jim points out, the oceans constitute a complex environment where multiple processes are carried out as a function of numerous variables, including spatial, chemical, and physical. CO2 is “plant food” and the more there is the more oxygen there is in both the oceans and in the atmosphere. But the “great oxygenation” that boosted atmospheric oxygen to current or higher levels occurred as a result of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria, which of course required high concentrations of dissolved CO2 in seawater. Peak oxygen levels, much higher than today, characterized the Carboniferous period – gee, why the word “carbon”?
Carbon and oxygen are two substances that co-participants in photosynthesis, converting the energy of the sun into in the greening of our planet, adding oxygen to the atmosphere, and spreading life on this planet, starting with one celled creatures, and eventually exploding in both mass and diversity of species.
More CO2 in the oceans is a much larger lever on oxygen concentration in the atmosphere, than is oxygen solubility in seawater. Indeed, the rate curve for solubility vs. temperature in seawater is nearly flat in the current range of average ocean temperatures, which spatially averaged is about 20 deg C today. Increase temperature by the dreaded 1.5 deg C (which by the way is not a water temperature, but an atmospheric temperature – the oceans have a far higher specific heat content than air, and consequently the same energy that raises air by 1 deg C raises liquid water temperature by 1/4 deg C) … and the effect on total solubility of temperature changes is nil.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/841/oxygen_solubility_fresh_sea_water.pdf
Back a brief period of my youth (A youth looking to understand “life” then drugs introduced.) I thought that a person’s “fate” could be determined if we only could figure out all of the variables of the “equation” they were born with. (Yes, I was nuts. PS No LSD was involved. PPS It was learning the basics of God’s Word that brought me back to sanity.(I realize some would argue that. 😎 ))
The World is a chaotic system. Too many variables enter into what is “Climate”, let alone today’s weather forecast!
Short term weather forecast were “good” and getting better and are now better than they’ve been.
Long term “Climate” forecast? ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/)
The were never even “good” and have gotten worse.
I am curious as to the difference between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as shown in the second embedded figure, panel B.
Is this due to a geographical cause, the Pacific probably having relatively more area in the tropics and less at high latitudes?
My assumption involves the ocean conveyor belt that transports cold highly-oxygenated water from the Arctic along the deeper Atlantic layers towards the equator. Below 1000 meter depths, there is less organic matter to consume and deplete oxygen, so the more highly oxygenated deep Atlantic waters lose less oxygen and overall oxygen increases with depth (graphic B). There is no equivalent transport of deep oxygenated water from the Arctic in the Pacific Ocean, so deep oxygen concentrations in the Pacific are less than the Atlantic.
I remember reading this in a few papers, but cannot remember which ones so cannot provide references.
Very nice Jim.
No mention of C4 and CAM plants Jim?
Not sure what are are asking or why?
Phil is another pain in the caboose. I noticed that it’s taking him (her or it) a long time to reply.
Good article that will be on tomorrow’s recommended reading list on my blog
The climate battle is simple:
There are more leftists than conservatives
Leftists can invent bad news about CO2 much faster than conservatives can refute their claims
The mass media will publish any claim or prediction that makes CO2 look bad
The climate propaganda over the decades has been very effective.
I have spent 26 looking for bad news from adding CO2 to the atmosphere and cam not find any. More CO2 is good news for life — ask any greenhouse owner.
It’s very obvious leftist politicians are trying to control people by controlling their energy use. And they can only control energy use by demonizing CO2. So that’s what they do. Authoritarian governments need a boogeyman and CO2 is one.
Up to the level of 0.1% CO2 in the air, photosynthesis increases and prevails over respiration. For humans, the level of oxygen in the air is important. With access to fresh air, we are not in danger of carbon dioxide poisoning at such low levels. Red blood cells easily get rid of CO2 when oxygen is available.
“Up to the level of 0.1% CO2 in the air, photosynthesis increases and prevails over respiration.”
I have read about 200 CO2 enrichment – C3 plant growth studies since 1997. They almost always enrich to about 600 to 800ppm CO2. I do not recall any studies with 1000ppm or more CO2. Where do you get your claim of a1000 ppm CO2 limit, which I do not believe is true?
1200 ppm is a general Rule of Thumb but there are exceptions, For one example:
The ideal CO2 levels for indoor cannabis growing are between 1000-1500 parts per million (ppm) during the vegetative stage and between 1200-1500 ppm during the flowering stage.
Greenhouse owners typically CO2 enrich to 800 to 1200 ppm in the early growing season. (fall through early spring nwhen greenhouse vents are closed), Are you claiming they are fools and are wasting their money by enriching more than 1000ppm? I did not believe that either.
Some plants benefit from 1200 to 1500ppm CO2
With a CO2 level of 1200-1500ppm the temperature needs to be between 30C and 35C. Along with the higher concentration of CO2, the higher temperature is conducive to faster growth. Those high CO2 levels also need extra greenhouse lighting.
Above 2000 ppm can v be f dangefrous for plants.
A good article on the general subject:
Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation | Oklahoma State University (okstate.edu)
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 0.036% is much lower than optimal for photosynthesis under favorable light conditions and appropriate temperature. Under optimal conditions, the rate of photosynthesis increases to a CO2 concentration of about 0.1%. At extremely low CO2 concentrations, respiration and photorespiration processes produce more CO2 than is assimilated in photosynthesis.”
?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9087789
As carbon dioxide concentrations rise, the rate at which sugars are made by the light-independent reactions increases until limited by other factors. RuBisCO, the enzyme that captures carbon dioxide in the light-independent reactions, has a binding affinity for both carbon dioxide and oxygen. When the concentration of carbon dioxide is high, RuBisCO will fix carbon dioxide. However, if the carbon dioxide concentration is low, RuBisCO will bind oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. This process, called photorespiration, uses energy, but does not produce sugars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Very important for the process of photosynthesis is adequate hydration of plants when the temperature rises. An increase in CO2 will increase photosynthesis under favorable conditions.
What I miss in this all is the effect of rising UV levels since 1952 on fythoplankton, they don’t have the built in UV protection landbased plants have, so is it possible the rising CO2 /lesser O2 is just reason of growing UV effect on fythoplankton, so they can absorb less CO2, and give back less O2? https://global.si.edu/projects/uv-effects-phytoplankton