Plankton Production Same As 20 Years Before–Climate Scientists Panic!

From NOT A LOT A PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Yet another junk study, which would not see the light of day in any other branch of science:

Abstract

Phytoplankton Primary Production supports most of the marine ecosystem and is highly sensitive to changing environmental pressures. There is much debate about whether marine primary production is increasing or decreasing and what environmental parameters may be driving these changes. We analysed a 21-year time-series of net primary production (NPP) computed from Ocean Colour Climate Change Initiative (OC-CCI) data spanning September 1997-December 2018, focusing on areas of similar phenology, climatology, and annual NPP in the north-east Atlantic Ocean. Across the entire area, NPP increased from 1998 to 2003, followed by a significant decline until 2018. This pattern was predominant in north-western European coastal waters and specific areas of the English Channel, Irish Sea, North Sea and Norwegian Sea, where it was related to changes in sea surface temperature and mixed layer depth.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2026.1703257/full

The press release states:

Detected from space: 20 years of data shows declining photosynthesis in UK and surrounding waters

new study by scientists at Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) has revealed a significant long-term decline in ocean productivity across large parts of the north-east Atlantic. This raises concerns about the future health of marine food webs, fisheries and the ocean’s ability to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide.

Using more than two decades of satellite observations, researchers analysed changes in microalgae net primary production – the process by which microscopic marine plants convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into organic matter, which forms the foundation of marine ecosystems.

The study, led by PML’s Dr Gavin Tilstone and Dr Peter Land, examined satellite data spanning 1997 to 2018 and found that, after a brief period of increasing productivity in the late 1990s and early 2000s, primary production declined steadily across much of the region, particularly in north-west European coastal waters, the Irish Sea, North Sea, western English Channel and parts of the Norwegian Sea.

The research links these declines primarily to changes in sea surface temperature and mixed layer depth – key physical properties that control how nutrients and light are distributed in the upper ocean.

Dr Gavin Tilstone, Bio-optical Oceanographer at PML, said:

“While the ocean may appear to be one giant body of water, it is often divided into layers based on temperature. As the ocean warms, these layers become stronger and less likely to vertically mix – a process known as thermal stratification.”

“This matters because the mixing of ocean waters helps transport nutrients from the depths to the surface, where phytoplankton can use them to grow. When that supply is reduced, microalgae productivity can decline.”

Dr Peter Land, Remote Sensing Scientist at PML, added:

“In many regions, warming surface waters and altered mixing are reducing the conditions phytoplankton need to thrive. This limits the energy entering marine food webs and can have huge knock-on effects for fish stocks and ecosystem services.”

https://pml.ac.uk/news/detected-from-space-20-years-of-data-shows-declining-photosynthesis-in-uk-and-surrounding-waters

Like so many other climate studies, this one takes a microscopically short period of data, twenty one years, and pretends that trends during that time have any significance whatsoever. As scientific experts in the Atlantic climate have long known, ocean temperatures and currents there regularly undergo massive climatic shifts. During the last century alone, the North Atlantic has swung from cold to warm, warm to cold, and back again to the warmer climate we have enjoyed for the last three decades.

It is not coincidental that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation switched to warm phase in the mid 1990s, just when this latest study began its analysis.

The graph below is key to the study’s findings that plankton production is declining:

But, hey! What we see is a huge increase in Net Primary Production, NPP, between 1998 and 2003, followed by a drop back to its levels in the first few years of the analysis. Most of the increase in fact took place in just one year. Moreover, since 2012, NPP has been stable; this fact alone should nullify the authors’ claims that rising sea temperatures are reducing phytoplankton production.

The slope trend line is spurious and meaningless; over the period as a whole, there has been no decrease. The downward trend is simply a product of the timing of that spike – if it had occurred in 2013, instead of 2003, the trend would be up, not down.

There is no mention in any of this either of the accuracy or otherwise of the satellite data fed into their models. Tucked away in the main body of the paper is the admission that:

These studies show that when the NPP model is applied to SeaWiFS and MODIS-Aqua the differences over these regions are between 15% and 35%.

In other words, the error margins are massive and make any conclusions virtually worthless.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
June 13, 2026 2:20 am

They got their paper published. Object achieved!

Reply to  JeffC
June 13, 2026 2:32 am

And working on the paper kept them from congregating on the the street corners and annoying the local populace.

James Snook
Reply to  JeffC
June 13, 2026 9:21 am

CHING ££££££…..

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 13, 2026 2:29 am

A null result sometimes is worth reporting, …. as a null result.

June 13, 2026 2:57 am

The never tested the blindingly obvious driver of sunlight. As I understand it, CERES has that data. Or maybe they did but didn’t report on it.

strativarius
June 13, 2026 3:05 am

Models and assumptions; and guaranteed narrative compliant results.

There will probably be more of this sort of thing. E tu, mad Ed?

Miliband front-runner to be Burnham’s chancellor
Energy Secretary has been giving economic advice to Starmer rival, despite remaining in Prime Minister’s Cabinet
– Telegraph

strativarius
Reply to  strativarius
June 13, 2026 3:29 am

Addendum

Miliband Comes for Underfloor Heating and Towel Rails in Net Zero Drive

Richard Tice, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK, accused the Energy Secretary of making households “cold and miserable” to meet climate goals.

He said: “Mad Miliband’s latest Net Zero push to restrict underfloor heating and electric towel rails is utter madness. Even the Romans had underfloor heating.
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/06/13/miliband-comes-for-underfloor-heating-and-towel-rails-in-net-zero-drive/

Reply to  strativarius
June 13, 2026 6:56 am

It appears that there is no end to Miliband’s madness.

Note: The under floor heating in my Korean apartments was wonderful.

Neil Pryke
June 13, 2026 3:06 am

Someone’s got to do it…



June 13, 2026 3:07 am

I asked ChatGPT what it thought of the paper (and supplied the paper, obviously), and the question

Given the poor R2 statistics, how appropriate is the title of the paper?

Resulted in

If I were reviewing the paper, I would say the title is stronger than the evidence warrants.
The title is:

“Decline in satellite-derived primary production in the north-east Atlantic driven by changes in sea surface temperature and mixed layer depth.”

The phrase “driven by” implies a reasonably strong attribution. In scientific writing, most readers will interpret that as meaning the authors have demonstrated that SST and MLD are the principal causes of the decline.
But the actual results are more nuanced.
The statistical evidence is modestTheir strongest relationship is:

  • Kattegat: R² = 0.45 (SST + MLD)

Most others are:

  • 0.25
  • 0.21
  • 0.17
  • 0.15
  • 0.13

with many regions having even weaker explanatory power.
An R² of 0.25 means 75% of the variance remains unexplained.
An R² of 0.15 means 85% remains unexplained.
Those aren’t worthless relationships—far from it. In environmental science they can be meaningful. But they are not what I would call definitive attribution.
They tested a limited set of candidate variablesThe conclusion “SST and MLD drive the changes” is really shorthand for:

“Among AMOC, ENSO, NAO, SST, MLD and wind variables, SST and MLD often emerged as the strongest predictors.”

That’s a much weaker claim than:

“We have identified the physical drivers of the NPP decline.”

The distinction matters because they did not test:

  • nutrients,
  • phosphate,
  • nitrate,
  • silicate,
  • light trends,
  • cloud trends,
  • atmospheric absorption,
  • grazing,
  • phytoplankton community shifts,
  • disease/viral effects,
  • river nutrient changes.

So they cannot exclude any of those as major contributors.
The discussion is actually more cautious than the titleInterestingly, the paper’s conclusion says NPP declines were:

“related to an increase in SST and either a decrease or an increase in MLD”

“Related to” is a considerably more cautious phrase than “driven by.”
In my view, the wording in the conclusion is closer to what the data support.
What title would better match the evidence?Something like:

“Decline in satellite-derived primary production in the north-east Atlantic associated with changes in sea surface temperature and mixed layer depth”

or

“Sea surface temperature and mixed layer depth are significant correlates of declining primary production in the north-east Atlantic”

would be harder to criticize statistically.
A reviewer might still accept the original titleTo be fair to the authors, there is a convention in parts of climate and oceanography where “driven by” is often used more loosely than a statistician would like.
Many papers use language such as:

  • “driven by SST”
  • “driven by circulation changes”
  • “driven by nutrient limitation”

when what has actually been shown is a significant correlation plus a physically plausible mechanism.
So the title is not unusual for the field.
My assessmentIf I were grading the strength of the claim:

  • “SST and MLD are statistically associated with NPP changes” → strongly supported.
  • “SST and MLD are important contributors” → reasonably supported.
  • “SST and MLD are the dominant drivers” → only weakly supported.
  • “SST and MLD explain the observed decline” → not convincingly demonstrated.

The low-to-moderate R² values, combined with the omission of several plausible drivers, mean the paper demonstrates correlation with a plausible mechanism, not a comprehensive attribution. The title arguably overstates that distinction.

Len Werner
June 13, 2026 8:39 am

As I age, I find catastrophist climate scientists sounding ever more like Earthworm Jim characters.

SxyxS
Reply to  Len Werner
June 13, 2026 10:04 am

Global WORMing.

Victor
June 13, 2026 9:51 am

Phytoplankton need large amounts of CO2 to produce the oxygen we need.

That’s right—more than half of the oxygen you breathe comes from marine photosynthesizers, like phytoplankton and seaweed. Both use carbon dioxide, water and energy from the sun to make food for themselves, releasing oxygen in the process. In other words, they photosynthesize. And they do it in the ocean.

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/plankton/every-breath-you-take-thank-ocean