Climate Change

19° London Hi 22°C / Lo 10°C

The dead sea:

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton

Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

A large bloom of phytoplankton - which has been described as 'the basis of life in the oceans' - floating in the north-eastern Atlantic, as seen from space

NASA

A large bloom of phytoplankton - which has been described as 'the basis of life in the oceans' - floating in the north-eastern Atlantic, as seen from space

The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.

Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.

If the findings are confirmed by further studies it will represent the single biggest change to the global biosphere in modern times, even bigger than the destruction of the tropical rainforests and coral reefs, the scientists said yesterday.

Phytoplankton are microscopic marine organisms capable of photosynthesis, just like terrestrial plants. They float in the upper layers of the oceans, provide much of the oxygen we breathe and account for about half of the total organic matter on Earth. A 40 per cent decline would represent a massive change to the global biosphere.

"If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I've been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one," said marine biologist Boris Worm of Canada's Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He said: "If real, it means that the marine ecosystem today looks very different to what it was a few decades ago and a lot of this change is happening way out in the open, blue ocean where we cannot see it. I'm concerned about this finding."

The researchers studied phytoplankton records going back to 1899 when the measure of how much of the green chlorophyll pigment of phytoplankton was present in the upper ocean was monitored regularly. The scientists analysed about half a million measurements taken over the past century in 10 ocean regions, as well as measurements recorded by satellite.

They found that phytoplankton had declined significantly in all but two of the ocean regions at an average global rate of about 1 per cent per year, most of which since the mid 20th Century. They found that this decline correlated with a corresponding rise in sea-surface temperatures – although they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the decline.

The study, published in the journal Nature, is the first analysis of its kind and deliberately used data gathered over such a long period of time to eliminate the sort of natural fluctuations in phytoplankton that are known to occur from one decade to the next due to normal oscillations in ocean temperatures, Dr Worm said. "Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2 and ultimately support all of our fishes." he said.

But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.

"Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations, but the overall trend can be overinterpreted because of the masking effect of natural variations," said Manuel Barange of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and a phytoplankton expert.

However, the Dalhousie scientists behind the three-year study said they have taken the natural oscillations of ocean temperatures into account and the overall conclusion of a 40 per cent decline in phytoplankton over the past century still holds true.

"Phytoplankton are the basis of life in the oceans and are essential in maintaining the health of the oceans so we should be concerned about its decline.

"It's a very robust finding and we're very confident of it," said Daniel Boyce, the lead author of the study.

"Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans," Dr Boyce said.

Phytoplankton is affected by the amount of nutrients the well up from the bottom of the oceans. In the North Atlantic phytoplankton "blooms" naturally in spring and autumn when ocean storms bring nutrients to the surface.

One effect of rising sea temperatures has been to make the water column of some regions nearer the equator more stratified, with warmer water sitting on colder layers of water, making it more difficult for nutrients to reach the phytoplankton at the sea surface.

Warmer seas in tropical regions are also known to have a direct effect on limiting the growth of phytoplankton.

  • Guest
    Whether a 0.74% increase in global temperature over 100 years could have lead to a 40% drop in phyoplankton is highly debatable.
  • rogerhq
    I am sure all the phytoplankton agrees but those events is shrouded in the mist of science so their masters have a hard time decoding the truth.
  • rogerhq
    I guess your single brain cell can't fathom a house containing both a fridge and a sauna.
  • When I see the word 'could' attached to any research, especially near 'global warming blamed', at the very least my eyebrow cranks. Which is a pity. As there may well be some insights worth considering. But such is the state of PR-ratings to news-'fact' in many publications these days, especially around this topic, one might be forgiven for looking around a bit more. I'm just grateful for the comments - whose degree of accuracy I cannot yet confirm - both supportive and critical, that feedback systems such as this now support. At least there is cause to look more and think further. Sadly, I suspect what gets headlined or broadcast in certain quarters might not be so balanced and thought-provoking.
  • ptstroud
    Are sea temperatures increasing? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/
  • ptstroud
    But are sea temperatures rising? This statement is certainly not supported by all scientific studies. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/
  • ptstroud
    But are sea temperatures rising? Not all scientific reports support this, and other statements such as rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic ice. I suggest the following should be taken into consideration: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/
  • rogerhq
    Nor did I ask for any future temperature of the house. The example was an illustration to the concept of "average" or "mean" temperature or any other measureable entity. And now , let us train your ability to fathom the concept of "future": Here is a bunch of numbers: ...4, 5, 6, 7, ... What will next number be?
  • david_fta
    Gday derekcolman, Global warming is thought to contribute to this by accelerated warming of upper ocean layers. As upper warms it becomes less dense, and the consequent stratification retards vertical mixing. As a result, there is less recycling of nutrients which are conveyed with sinking detritus to deeper water. Incidentally, this also means that acidification of surface waters becomes more pronounced because dissolved CO2 is no longer metabolised. What drives this trend is accelerated warming of the surface waters, ie global warming. It's explained in more detail via the 28 July 2010 story "Marine Phytoplankton Declining: Striking Global Changes at the Base of the Marine Food Web Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures" at Science Daily website.
  • CitizenPlusPlus
    The 5 easy steps to being green, creating jobs, and adverting the worst effects of climate change and peak oil. 1) Stop SprawL!!! 2) R.R.Recycle! 3) ReForest/FoodForest!/VirginForest!! 4) Wind!/GeoThermal!!/Solar! 5) Electric&OpenSource; Trains!!/Cars/Media! http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/solutions/ http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1989 http://www.storyofstuff.com
  • sTv0
    Right. Let's have a closer look at Mr. Eschenbach's profile: Oh, darn, this isn't good: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php And this is going to leave a mark: "By doctoring the instrumental measurements so that they were all lower, he (Eschenbach) makes it look like Hansen's model predicted more warming that what was actually observed." Ahh. Another denier debunked! Lovin' it! Say, Alan, any other fun stuff you got for us to debunk? Like "it's been cooling since 1998", or "it's the sun, stupid", or "the ocean's haven't been warming up the last fifteen minutes"? Maybe you could trot out Monckton again...he's always good for a few laughs.
  • david_fta
    Are sea surface temperatures increasing? Yes. Have a look at NOAA's recently released report "State of the Climate 2009".
  • TJFoley
    To the moderators of this rag. I will no longer be reading The Independent or bothering to post any more comments since you deem anything remotely contentious or informative too dangerous to post. Why? My comment yesterday used no bad or insulting language, but included reports pertaining to illegal police actions against canadian citizens at the recent G20, and the death of animal life on the planet. This paper is as colonized by corporate goons as every other mainstream news outlet. If the planet is a ship of fools, it is because papers like The Independent neglected their duty to report the truth, and employed journalists with no sense of obligation to that truth. You, the moderators, whoever you are, sitting at your workstations, should be ashamed of yourselves, for having no moral courage, or even the understanding to know you have no moral courage. We are too far gone. Signing off. TJFoley.
  • Oh my talk about reading into this too much! You suggest that, ""They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming". Belief is not science, especially when it is based on zero evidence." Err what evidence do you have that they have no evidence? What they actually said was, "Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures." A second piece in nature which looked at this stunning piece of work says, "Taking great care, they created time series of phytoplankton biomass in the pelagic ocean, quantified as surface chlorophyll concentrations. They find a strong correspondence between this chlorophyll record and changes in both leading climate indices and ocean thermal conditions. They also show statistically significant long-term decreases in chlorophyll concentrations for eight of the ten ocean basins, and for the global aggregate." Finally almost every scientific piece of work implies further studies. In this case it is a ground breaking piece of research and science relies on verification and reproducibility of results.
  • Guest
    Sorry, I thought it was called the Dead Sea for a reason !
  • Climate Change is what has always happened. Global warming is not something you believe in, it is something you measure. Currently it measures 1.1 deg C per Century according to official estimates. Substantially below the IPCC's lowest possible value of 1.8 deg C and of little danger to anyone or anything.
  • Sounds brutal but the solution isn't us humans living a 'greener' life but a lot less of us living a more simple life. Recycling and all that daftness is just a consumer focused con to keep us consuming and feeding the corporate/political entities that lead us by the nose. And for those of you in comfortable denial, "global warming" where we steadily plod, "climate change" is how we are getting there. Have a think about it before you go shopping..
  • Willis Eschenbach subjects the paper to basic "reasonableness" tests in a WattsUpWithThat blog post today and fails it. More comprehensive analysis is stymied because the paper is published without data or details of the computational processes. Nothing changes in climate "research".
  • derekcolman
    Mighty, I was not referring to the evidence of the study, of which there are bucket loads. There is zero evidence that global warming is the cause. Hopefully this research will continue until the cause is established, whether it be global warming, pollution, over fishing, or maybe a combination of different factors. It is not helpful to say they believe it might be global warming. I repeat, belief is not science.
  • Either over fishing or this menace will finish everything off. Does no-one ever listen? http://endoftheline.com/
  • andronico
    What's interesting in this story is the trajectory taking off in the 50s, when carbon emissions will not have been anything like their contemporary levels. Given this, and that the warming will have been a heavily 'lagging indicator' anyway, doesn't the study thus cast severe doubt on global warming being a man-made phenomenon? And thus cast doubt on man being able to remedy it?
  • TommyTCG
    Arctic ice has thickened 25% and grown in area since May 2008 according to US Navy submarine Ops. data. Antarctic ice is it thickest ever. Warmest summer ever story was based on Greenland temp sensors that DONT exist!! All at www.wattsupwiththat.com 30,000 plus scientists, and 9000 plus PhDs in US alone say there is NO man made, CO2 GW. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.26 So there is NO consensus, not that science is by consensus South America had Anrtarctic air coming as far Noth as the Equator in Brazil So where is it warming that killing the plankton? My contrary comments always get censored on this site. ..lets see this time how Indie is the Indie.
  • g0annahead
    little fish, dead fish, no fish little sea, dead sea, no sea
  • rumpledumplin
    If the figures for phytoplankton decline are anywhere near correct AND we continue to cut down the trees that also contribute to our Oxygen, then we will see a decline in our atmospheric Oxygen concentration but it is not going to be switched off just like that.. Remember there are billions of tons of gases in our atmosphere so the small initial change may be almost imperceptible/outside the range of the measuring technique/modified locally by other factors etc etc. But what will you do when the %age starts to drop? Deny the results again? What are your references for atmospheric Oxygen, to how many decimal places?
  • didimus
    "with warmer water sitting on colder layers of water," . . . How very odd ! . . . I don't think. This work is really very, very robust.
  • human being is the reason for this.
  • rogerhq
    Good boy, Yes, it's very important to tell the truth. The problem is there is different kinds of truths, Fundamental truths and deduced truths. The fundamental truth is that almost half of your salary have disappeard. And now the harder nut: Why did it happen?
  • VivaLaRevolution
    I seem to remember the coasts of Italy and others covered in green slime (the name of which escapes me) from the surrounding sea. year after year. What have they done about that?
  • and, and China now wants to scoop up all the Krill, another basic footstuff for the wild creatures of the oceans.
  • haplesswanderer
    Global Warming gets blamed for everything these days. Could it just be a scientific cop out?
  • rogerhq
    The use of the word naive in serious studies who discover alarming changes of fundamentals vital for human existence is stupid at best.
  • acidpen
    "Phytoplankton is affected by the amount of nutrients the well up from the bottom of the oceans. In the North Atlantic phytoplankton "blooms" naturally in spring and autumn when ocean storms bring nutrients to the surface." couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be related to toxic waste dumping and depleted shallow water fish stocks could it?
  • CurtOntheRadio
    Oh, great. speechless.
  • ignorance is mercy from God!
  • bendenise
    At least it promotes thought on insignificance, but I'm not short of breath, British Gas doubled its profits due to a cold winter, my coffee is still affordable and black, and mackerel skies are still available in summer.
  • guayacan
    The slime is called algae, and blooms are common in areas of high iron concentrate or sewage. I believe the latter is the problem here, and the Italian govt may be the culprit rather than marine nature.
  • Rockingham
    Don't know when to stop with this global warming band waggon do they, no mention of the masses of chemicals deposited in the seas from every source with dramatic increases in quantity year on year since the middle of the last century, total denial of the fact this planet goes through cycles which it's done since it formed the difference is in the past we accepted the changes as normal now every scientist on the planet looks to make a name for him/herself and justify their salary by giving us reasons why it's happening. every study we have seen is based on flawed and twisted data to make it fit the intended results then when challenged out come the lies.
  • Paragluteus
    Sounds a bit fishy to me

    But if the results are so significant , why not do it with those massive amount of careful CO2 measurements that were made over the same period?

    Ah! Of course! It won't be fashionableand might show something really significant .
  • finsburyparker
    "Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere which currently stands at 20.94% almost exactly the same level as was documented in 1900" I believe the alleged slight almost imperceptible reduction of this life supporting gas is due to the demands placed on this 'Gas' by the constant use of it by Politicians? Perhaps a few large trees in the House of Conmens would go some way to alleviate the problem, as obviously the 'Planks' that reside there are totally inadequate? G. Peasemould.
  • guayacan
    I agree I need to look into the article again with reference to carbonic acid and the non-use of bicarbonate for growth, but the basis is still there. Below is a link to a website with information regarding this subject. Seeeming as you are quite obviously opinionated against the greens and climate change, I doubt you have any professional association to science or consequence to concerned audience. This site supported by Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (UNESCO-IOC) IAEA Marine Environment laboratory http://www.ocean-acidification.net/
  • tony_opmoc
    According to the BBC website "Phytoplankton... produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2, and ultimately support all of our fisheries". I of course always believe what the BBC publish...??? So if this report is true, and Phytoplankton has indeed declined by 40%, over the last 100 years, and the BBC is telling the truth, can someone please explain why there has been absolutely no corelation in the level of Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere which currently stands at 20.94% almost exactly the same level as was documented in 1900? Or has someone made an erm error (and been exeedingly well paid for it). I think it exceedingly important to tell the truth, because I know the story of the Boy who Cried Wolf. Tony
  • kawasakiman
    Oh really, that old line again. Of course it has nothing to do with dumping Toxic waste then ? And besides. exactly how accurate was the data collected in 1899 ?
  • Trust Oliver Cromwell to talk a load of s##t.
  • TommyTCG
    Censored again. Mods hate wattsupwiththat.com.
  • guayacan
    Carbon is the problem, not oxygen. This article doesn't mention the increase in CO2, which is absorbed by the ocean surface (amongst others), and produces a carbonate which is used by phytoplankton for growth. If there is an excess of CO2 absorption, then this produces an acid state, or bicarbonate, and this can't be used for growth by these organisms, and therefore they die (along with coral reefs etc etc.). There have been scientific articles written about acid oceans and they are directly linked to the extra CO2 being produced. Why this is not mentioned here seems to trouble me. Why link the problem purely to temperature?. For the inane comments of oxygen levels (which have not lowered). Even if the level were not to fall is indeed irrelevant, as nature can't live with the toxicity of the state left from releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere. Humans are simply part of that chain.
  • collinbrown
    I'll say the same to you as I did to LoveIsOnlyRequired. "Man will remain a reckless and selfish creature until he evolves beyond material possession. In the meantime, I'll carry on objecting to having my trousers pulled down by Eco Nazis more interested in making a fast buck than cleaning up oceans. It'll take a 14-mile-wide meteor impact to destroy the biosphere of this planet. Man's net contribution to raising global temperatures is around 000.1%. If you, or anyone else, feels so bad about that, then by all means, keep paying 4x the amount for your electricity and gas as you did a decade ago. Just don't ask me to chip-in on the 'guilt-trip' of a lifetime".
  • collinbrown
    You Sir, are an idiot.
  • Tom
    Rate. Of. Change.
  • Marc_Munier
    Humans are the cause of lower phytoplankton, and that should be the headline, we are making the seas warmer and more polluted with our waste as well as huge quantities of nutrients which cause algae blooms of the wrong kind. Focusing solely on global warming is a cop out. If we "just" stopped making the planet warmer we'd still be driving vast swathes of the the species on Earth to extinction, because of our other activities. It doesn't take a 3 year study to know that we need to respect our oceans, the resources that are going into research should be redirected to actually fixing the problem!
  • VivaLaRevolution
    "huge factory ships in the Southern Ocean, sucking up plankton for health foods and cosmetics" are you sure of this?
  • rumpledumplin
    No, because there has been a large buffering effect operating for a long time... We are just starting to exceed that buffer capacity.. Now things will (probably) change faster. But I agree, mankind does not have the wit to turn aside from it's own destructive path until (as in the case of GW) it is probably far too late.
  • [snip]
  • rumpledumplin
    You do not know what you are talking about. The seas are becoming more acidic and limits to their buffering capacity is being reached ..
  • rumpledumplin
    Warmer oceans and more CO2 are beneficial to phytoplankton.. Better tell that to the Phytoplankton then, make them pull their little socks up and stop dying.. If you know anything about the subject you will understand that organisms develop into various ecological niches over millenia and can not usually tolerate swift change.. As has been pointed out, it is the rate of change that is important ... and it is very fast, unnaturally fast..
  • Petefergie
    Sheesh... Boris Worm can't think and he's also concerned! What say you Reggie Slug?
  • collinbrown
    Man Made Global Warming - The Guilt Trip of a Lifetime.
  • crashtestmonkey
    So all that pollution is good for them?
  • C
    What don't you like? This is pretty normal, called "stratification" I think.
  • rumpledumplin
    Sorry, what bothers you about this description of a thermocline?
  • The dead sea followed by the dead planet. Good expectations for the guilty mankind.
  • Of course not ALL, and not ALL of it is bad. Much of what you consider pollution, micro-bugs consider food. Remember the algae problems from the farm runoff, you same people probably rant on about that also. Plankton blooms seek out these food sources and die off after consuming them. CO2 is food too. BTW plants grow better in warm weather or you have to delete almost every hockeystick plot ever made. You guys are eco-nuts though and I realize that from the comments. I just wish it were tempered with some reality. or maybe a bit of data.
  • Guest
    That'll suits me just fine.
  • mitchell_n_beard
    I wonder if the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has dropped noticeably from 21%. if so, we are in very serious trouble indeed
  • collinbrown
    Man will remain a reckless and selfish creature until he evolves beyond material possession. In the meantime, I'll carry on objecting to having my trousers pulled down by Eco Nazis more interested in making a fast buck than cleaning up oceans.

    It'll take a 14-mile-wide meteor impact to destroy the biosphere of this planet. Man's net contribution to raising global temperatures is around 000.1%. If you, or anyone else, feels so bad about that, then by all means, keep paying 4x the amount for your electricity and gas as you did a decade ago. Just don't ask me to chip-in on the 'guilt-trip' of a lifetime.
  • Show me data which shows pollution 'consumes' phytoplankton's required nutrients doc, I'm curious as to that mechanism. Right below that you complain about algae growing too much from 'nutrient' pollution and eating all the good 'natural' oxygen. They tried to say the same thing about the oil spill in the gulf - which was a real disaster. However, the odd consequence of claiming that the oxygen is gone from the oil being consumed means that the 'oil' is breaking down. Ya see guys, there is plenty of change in the world and most can be easily absorbed. You can't complain about too much plants from pollution and in the same breath claim not enough. And ya certainly can't claim global warming has had any effect on phytoplankton - unless you're stupid or you want a stupid government to give you money.
  • crashtestmonkey
    He does actually have a point on biosolids as fertiliser. The UK and EU have very strict controls on 'wet sludge' human waste fertilisers. They have been in use for the past 40 years. Manufactured fertilisers are rising rapidly in cost due to the amount of oil used to make them. Just don't tell him organic fruit and vegtables have no nutritional difference to intensively farmed varieties.
  • collinbrown
    I deny global warming is caused by man. Moreover, I believe the AGW 'hypothesis' to be the largest financial deception of modern times. I'll now wait for the Eco-Nazis to kick down my door and arrest me for potentially diluting the profits from their brainwashing scam.
  • RidersontheStorm
    "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!" Constant Change Is here To stay
  • tony_opmoc
    Roger, The real reason, we have nearly all lost half our money is because our financial system is hopelessly corrupt and bankrupt. Someone is stealing from us. It is not hard to work out who it is, and it is not that difficult to reform it. The people who are stealing from us are the same people who are financing the Global Warming Propaganda, whilst ignoring or even causing the real environmental destruction - like the Gulf of Mexico, the Niger Delta, the atrocities of open cast mining across the third world - as well as starting most of the wars. They also control nearly everything that appears in the mainstream press. The following proposed act, will gradually move these powers back from an unelected financial elite to our elected Governments. bankofenglandact.co.uk Tony
  • collinbrown
    Go Grift somewhere else - I can see through you like a X-RAY.
  • CO2 dissolves in water to become carbonic acid. Carbonates are the salts resulting from the reaction of carbonic acid with metal salts for instance calcium hydroxide (to give calcium carbonate).
  • Garymac, Wow, I can't let this go either. alter the facts that we are turning our oceans into a desert devoid of life. Thanks for the laugh. I wonder where that data comes from. Geeez, stop with the silly smoke dude, read more. How much more over the top can you people get?!!
  • I tried and failed to paste in a very informative graphic from the phytoplankton data JeffID wants us to do a tennie bit of research into. I'll try posting the link instead: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/fig_tab/nature05317_F3.html This is satellite data showing how phytoplankton reacted to temperature changes over a 5-year period from 1999-2004. As you can see, the most common pattern was temperature up, phytoplankton down. ("For 74% of the permanently stratified oceans (that is, regions between black contour lines), NPP and SST changes were inversely related." NPP = net primary production, SST = sea surface temperature, inversely related = when one goes up, the other goes down)
  • david_fta
    Gday CollinBrown, you're wrong and right. Global warming is caused by humans, so you're wrong there. The carbon trading lurk that Goldman Sachs and their fellow criminals (aka banks) is the largest financial deception attempted in modern times. You're right about that. If we want a price on carbon emissions (and we do) the best way to do it is to give ourselves lots of tax cuts and governments make up the revenue by taxing carbon emissions out of existence over a decade or so.
  • derekcolman
    G'day, David. I think I am inclined to agree with you. Given the physical properties of CO2 molecules, Miskolcai's theory does not quite seem to gel. I have discovered a blog by Dr. Roy Spencer which gives a good explanation of back radiation of IR from CO2. I leave you to Google his name and find out who he is, that's if you don't already know. If you go to this URL and scroll down to the second article titled "Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still", he explains how radiant heat from a cooler object can heat a warmer object. Comments are worth reading as he replies to many of them. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Bear in mind that Dr. Spencer is one of the world's top climate scientists, is sceptical of AGW, and is not in the pay of big anything. He agrees that CO2 has a greenhouse effect but that it is not the major driver of recent warming, and the effect of anthropogenically generated CO2 is so small as to be insignificant. That is pretty much my opinion, and now I remember where I first heard that (Dr. Roy Spencer). Do not come back to me on the first article on the blog for at least 24 hours, as I have not had chance to read it yet.
  • The article in question is referencing a 40 percent loss over 100 years. I did take the time to look up the satellite data and did have a couple of experts on the topic stop by my blog. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com. It's assinine to paste point measurements on satellite data and come to this conclusion. Did you know the most prolific phytoplankton species in the ocean Prochlorococcus wasn't even discovered until a few decades ago? - I learned that this morning. This stuff couldn't even be measured in the past so how can any trend be determined when the stuff wasn't even being measured? It's like sea ice data, it's only good for trend calcs since 1978. That doesn't stop alarmists from seeking government funding though. I am not counting on anyone NOT to look up data, I'm rather hoping they would. It seems you took the time to not only look it up but kept looking until you found one which said I was wrong. That's fine too but having not read the paper (it's behind a paywall I assume), I'm curious if you've interpreted it correctly and of course whether the scientists got the answer right - there is a lot of bad climate science rolling around. If you send your paper to jeffid1 at gmail dot com, I'll check it out. I read lots of papers.
  • At the time of Justice the size of the Wheat was at the size of DATE seeds!
    Now:God said in the Holy Qur'an:
    Surah 30-Al-Rum-section 5-41:"Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hand of men have earned,that (ALLAH) may7 give them a tast of some of their deeds:in order that they may turn back(from Evil)"42
    what more mischief we see on this life when people having like this!!!!
    corruption & mischief is everywhere!
  • TJFoley
    Captain Paul Watson of The Sea Sheperd recently described our species as being insane, as he watched whales being slaughtered and witnessed them staring back at us with sentient eyes showing sympathy for their killers even as they were murdered. It is hard to argue against his reasoning. We are reporting the destruction of animal life on our planet in newspapers, observing and and expecting to see ourselves somehow live through this cataclysm. We cannot, and we will not. I don't think humanity will live to see the end of the century. The planet is dying around us, and as it dies, the maniacs who control the worlds banks and corporations are determined to increase their stranglehold over the population of the world. If you doubt my words, go to vimeo.com and punch in 'police state canada' and sit through the horrifying video from the security clampdown at the G20 Toronto this year.
  • jl3793
    The use of the word robust in this context means that after correcting for the "natural oscillations of ocean temperatures" the findings of the research study still hold. In other words, the author did consider that the change in the natural oscillations of the oceans might have been a factor affecting the balance of the phytoplankton but that it was shown in fact not to be such. This is a perfectly acceptable scientific procedure and is used in essentially all scientific studies. Failure to have consider this would have rendered the research unacceptable - which is the exact opposite of what the author did.
  • Sounds like you skipped something too, Derek. Here's that paragraph along with the next few for context:

    "But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.

    "Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations, but the overall trend can be overinterpreted because of the masking effect of natural variations," said Manuel Barange of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and a phytoplankton expert.

    However, the Dalhousie scientists behind the three-year study said they have taken the natural oscillations of ocean temperatures into account and the overall conclusion of a 40 per cent decline in phytoplankton over the past century still holds true. "

    The important part: the very person on whom the writer bases his "may not present a realistic picture" warning says....

    "Its an important observation and it's consistent with other observations"

    He's worried about the trend in this study getting "overinterpreted," but he *states that it matches up with what has been seen previously.*

    There's a lack of consensus about how accurately the SIZE of the trend can be known yet, given the noisy data. But the trend is there.
  • sabboo
    perhaps all the plastic floating around has an impact too.
  • Kevin, I am not so naive. Faculty live and die on their research funding and publications. No grants = no research students/equipment/funding. Yes, there are different rules in different countries but when I was a post-grad researcher in Canada everything depended on the grants. I'm not saying the results are doctored. I'm saying the research is aimed at finding something alarming and the conclusions are written up to foster the belief that the results are sufficiently concerning to warrant further funding. Instead of coming to firm conclusions and identifying weaknesses and uncertainties we get a plethora of "may"s and "if"s with little if anything to support them beyond pure speculation. Such seems to be the case yet again here.
  • Your English is too incompetent to generate any meaning beyond a puerile attempt to be rude.
  • Paragluteus
    @rogerhq Fact is, roger old bean ... I don't belieeeeve it. Bit like all that coral dying out, and the Maldives disappearing. And when the Royal Society's investigation into the quality of Prof. Jones' Climate Science work, took Prof.Jones' recommendation on what papers to review, I think you'd agree that the credibility of this branch of science, and incidentally of the Royal Society itself, is not exactly 'robust', is it?
  • rogerhq
    Well, the 40% is right there straight into your face and you don't see it? What's wrong with your single brain cell?
  • "To say that these plankton dont need other nutrients apart from sunlight and CO2 is frankly betraying your ignorance" To imply that I said anything of the sort is dishonest. You fabricate a false point and then call me ignorant - nice. Does it make you feel better?
  • my reply was snipped I guess. I have looked up sat data and am glad you looked up papers, but that isn't data. I don't have a link to your paper because it's behind a paywall. I would tell you where to send it but it was snipped before so I'm not able to discuss on this thread. Too bad, I was having fun.
  • "You have to be scientifically illiterate to miss the fact that PH has not changed in a measurable way since 100 years ago. We didn't have the tech to measure to this accuracy." Maybe scientist have some sort of proxy measurement to determine the pH level? Which does show an increase in the last 100 years. They cleverly predicated this because they know chemistry. :) "You have to be scientifically illiterate to not know that dead zones have been going on since there was life in the oceans - and lakes BTW." So lets get your logic straight. You seem to imply that because there were dead zones in the past, more dead zones now caused by human action is nothing to worry about? That does not make logical sense.
  • derekcolman
    G'day, David. I am not disputing the stratification, although it does sound strange that such a phenomenon should suddenly arise at a temperature that just happens to be half a degree above the early 20th. century temperature. It must be sod's law. I have just found an article on the effects of acidification on marine plankton which might interest you, as you seem to worry so much about it. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/marine-life-survived-8x-current-co2-levels It seems to be a sceptical blog site, but the science reporting appears sound.
  • Anyone who suggests that people are doctoring results to chase funding is ignorant of how grant-funded research works.

    Strangely, the same people who suggest that university professors are being deceitful to chase funding (professors who CANNOT enrich themselves with grant money...if they get paid out of the grant, the university subtracts the same amount from the salary it pays...the sum total cannot exceed the regular salary from the university) are unwilling to consider such ulterior motives on the part of people like Lindzen and the members of Heartland Institute, who were saying as late as the 1990s (actually at least into the early 2000s in Lindzen's case) that there was no clear link between smoking and cancer after having been given a bunch of money by tobacco companies. Money that DID go into their pockets.

    So,
    lifetime scientist who cannot profit monetarily from grants = lying for money
    while
    people and organizations with track record of lying for money = honest and virtuous

    It's freaking Orwellian
  • Climate Change is weasel wording to dodge the bullet of contrary real life experience. Your claim is that CO2 and water vapour feedbacks cause "unprecedented" global warming. Live with it or the discredit it deserves.
  • Accidental duplicate.
  • olivercromwell2
    Millions upon millions of tons of human excretia pouring into the oceans around the globe, instead of being used on our crops, is not helping the oceans,which are one of the main oxygen producers on the planet. Its not just the oceans that are dying it is the soil also. Failing to use our excretia on the land after it is composted is one of the the reasons our food is almost completely void of nutrients. We have lost our way, and taken the wrong road lets abandon Capitalistic consumerism, and get back to living a much fairer and greener way of life, starting with complete Organic food production. Sorry for repeating myself but Organic Organic Organic : ) Organic "oops"
  • collinbrown
    Hmm, you have me worried - now. Maybe I'll turn the gas valve back on in my house and start consuming again. After all, how else can I do my bit to save the planet unless I pay British Gas the ransom they demand.
  • crashtestmonkey
    Yes we all know plants absorb CO2. High CO2 levels, blue light and warmth promote growth. But, plants can only grow bigger and faster with a good nutrient supply and water. Pollution will deplete nutrient levels so it doesn't really matter how ideal all the other conditions are unless the whole system is in balance. Lots of data available on that. I think you mean algal blooms? These are quite often bad for marine life. They starve the water of oxygen and kill just about everything else. There is lots of lovely data available on that as well. Being an 'eco-nut' data is my staple diet.
  • rogerhq
    You are an Ant asking another Ant to "clean up the Oceans"? Don't you have any sense of size?
  • sTv0
    sand-colored...
  • sTv0
    no, it's not junk science, it's as real as the goofball ideas that flow so ineloquently from your mouth, cardigan. Heh, "junk science". Too funny. Say, where's Monckton when you need him? www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
  • PeterGee
    There is no reason for me to live with your own misinterpretation of climate change, nor for me to live with the lies that are told by both sides of the "debate".

    I am precise in what I say - Climate Change. I am not saying, claiming, nor believing that the problem of climate change is caused solely by CO2 emissions - although there is no doubt they play a part in the overall scheme of things. I am saying - as indeed are most of the scientists around the world - that the climate patterns of the world are changing. This is best illustrated by the use of the descriptive; "Climate Change".

    It is you, sir, that is attempting to conflate a change in the climate of the world we live in with some kind of political "party-speak" nonsense. For what reason, I am not sure, but I suspect that the descriptive; "myopic" would describe your views on the world with some accuracy, as it would most likely describe the way you see your own position in it - once one washes the vinegar off your personality, that is.
  • I wonder if you know that even the sign of cloud feedback is in question? Actually, I don't. Religious beliefs don't involve any mathematics or science.
  • Personal attacks prove only the character of the attacker and those who support him. Having read Lambert's article and skimmed the follow-up comments there is no cause to alter that opinion. Eschenbach's chart clearly shows that the "adjusted" Darwin temperature record trend bears no relation to the raw data from that site and can only have been imposed by measurements elsewhere. I invite anyone to read Eschenbach's thoughtful original article here and compare it with the intemperate and superficial hatchet job Lambert attempts. Decide for yourself: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
  • rogerhq
    It must be Venus. They already have Global warming there. it's around 500 C� and obviously rising slightly...
  • colibri1
    Please don't assume that my comment above was intended as a global warming denial. I am American but I'm not one of the right-wing crazy ones.
  • david_fta
    Don't you get it? This time the warmth is being brought on by suddenly elevated CO2 levels. Past warmer periods had other causes. The worry as fas as ocean ecology is not the temperature, or the CO2 levels. As derekcolman points out, oceans have been far warmer and subject to much higher acidity (dissolved CO2) in the distant past. The problem right now is the unprecedented RATE at which temperature and ocean chemistry. It will settle down again, but not in our lifetime.
  • PeterGee
    There is a case to be made that the reason for the discrediting of scientific research into Climate Change (please do not use the Dacre/Murdoch/Desmond description of "global warming") is because corporate interests are best served by such discrediting. There is not really any possible argument to support their being no changes taking place in the world - the argument is simply about the reasons for it (it weren't me guv'nor) and the possible actions that might alleviate the worst of it all for the sake of future humanity. The argument used by many people seems to be based on the assumption that they will be spending their wages on a charity that is supporting the Communist party - extremely stupid, in my view. Still, there will always be a need for cannon fodder to fight the battles of rich and titled 'gentlemen', won't there. Unfortunately.
  • PeterGee
    For some reason, the use of "they" in the context of "what have they done about it" strikes me as somewhat rude. Do you mean "they" as in 'them foreigners'? Or perhaps as in 'that foreign government'? Either way, it is rather "Little Britain", is it not? There have been well-publicised cases in the foreign press - this paper, for example - that has found areas that are contaminated by poor sewerage systems or direct waste dumping - hence the increased algae in those areas (green slime to you). There have been improvements in many areas of Italy regarding sewage treatment in the past couple of decades, but there is still much work to be done, ovviamente. @guayacan You are quite right in your description of the "green slime", however it is not simply a matter for the Italian government (much as I might like to drop Berluska in it) but a matter for the regional administrations. The fact that Puglia has seen such strides forward can be attributed to the Vendola regional administration, whilst the severe problems in Campania can be seen to be as a direct result of the integration of local government with cammoristi interests. Where the PDL (and also, it must be said, the PDsenzaL) plays a role is in the ignoring of the problems for the benefit of "friends & family" members.
  • Since both the fridge and sauna are insulated their internal temperatures are as unrelated to the temperature of the house as your silly posturing is to reality. If such pathetic nonsense is the best climate science can offer no wonder it is deservedly in public disrepute. And to point out the blindingly obvious, which unfortunately seems necessary in this forum, my original post you are attempting to smear made no comment on current average temperature. It addressed an appalling mis-allocation of resources which is killing people in the name of environmentalism.
  • david_fta
    James Lovelock suggested that marine net primary productivity (ie phytoplankton growth and hence biosequestration of CO2) could be enhanced by artificially enhancement of nutrient upwelling from the deep ocean. It now seems that Lovelock's idea is no longer "speculative". Following it up may now be "necessary". Offshore wind turbine installations could be adapted to a dual purpose, with some (or all?) of the harvested wind energy being diverted to siphoning deep water to the surface.
  • david_fta
    Gday derekcolman, You're correct that direct observational evidence of declining nutrients in surface waters is not presented. Rapid ocean surface temperature rise is observed. Following from this, decreasing exchange between surface and deeper ocean water is expected, leading to further expectation of declining phytoplankton.
  • ptstroud
    Are sea temperatures increasing?
  • derekcolman
    Kevin, I assure you I did not miss any of that. Please note that at no point in my comment did I dispute their observations. What I am disputing is this specific sentence "They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming". Belief is not science, especially when it is based on zero evidence. The tendency of today's scientists to mark everything up to global warming prejudices their ability to properly investigate and discover the real cause of a problem. There are precedents of this, for instance when some scientists were called in to investigate why oysters were dying off in certain oyster beds. They concluded it was caused by global warming. However a later investigation showed that they were actually being killed off by bacteria from raw sewage outflows in the vicinity. Increased human population had raised the bacteria level to the point where the oysters were seriously affected. I particularly took note of the the phrase "If the findings are confirmed by further studies", which implies that they might be seeking further funding for those studies. They also must be acutely aware that, in today's highly politicised science, it is necessary to include the magic words "global warming" in the application in order to stand any chance of getting that funding.
  • Garymac
    Ahh Jeff you are so right about plants growing better with more light and more CO2. Unfortunately you missed the part about nutrients also being required. If you read the article gain it highlights the fact that warm water sits on top of cold water (due to density) and acts as a barrier preventing the phytoplankton from accessing the other chemical compounds neceesary for life (also known as nutrients). To say that these plankton dont need other nutrients apart from sunlight and CO2 is frankly betraying your ignorance, all plants need trace elements as do all animals, hence the reason that fertilisers are big business. Simplistic reasoning such as you have evidenced in your comments does not alter the facts that we are turning our oceans into a desert devoid of life. Politicians know this, but cant wean themselves of the benefits that existing big business brings, so they dont pass the draconian laws we need to try and stop these changes, instead they cross their fingers and pray for a technical solution while paying lipservice to the environmental lobby.
  • david_fta
    Thanks for this, Jeff Id. Historical records seem to suggest measurement around ocean pH = 8.2 about half a century ago, whereas surface water pH measurements are now around pH = 8.1. Over that time, atmospheric CO2 has increased from ~340 ppm to ~390 ppm, yet the amount of carbon emissions should have increased it ~430 ppm. Where did the rest of the CO2 go? Into the oceans, where it has contributed to pH decrease. pH decrease is, of course, exacerbated if there isn't phytoplankton to take it up. But you've been working in science for the last couple of decades, you must surely have thought all this through already ... surely?
  • mtobis
    1) Ocean acidification, which is not mentioned here, is a direct effect of CO2, not via climate as an intermediary 2) Increased stratification, which is mentioned, is a consequence of warming. It reduces mixing of bottom waters. Any map of ocean biomass is a map of deep upwelling. You will see that the biologically richest areas are not the warmest, but rather some of the coolest. Also shorelines, where mechanical mixing is strongest. Warming from the top suppresses mixing.
  • david_fta
    You ask if small temperature rises can have large effects. I find that if the temperature of my strawberry daiquiri rises by even a fraction of a degree, 100% melting of the ice results. So 40% plankton loss isn't surprising if ocean stratification causes 40% less nutrients to well up from deeper water. By the way, what is this "0.74% increase in global temperature"? Which temperature scale are you using? Celsius? Global mean surface temperature around 15 deg C would means temperature has increased by ~0.111 deg C. Fahrenheit? Global mean surface temperature around 62 deg F (=15 deg C) would mean temperature has increased by ~0.459 deg F (~0.255 deg C) Kelvin? Global mean surface temperature around 288 deg K (=15 deg C) would mean temperature has increased by ~2 deg K (~2 deg C), and has risen to 17 deg C.
  • "Do a teenie tiny amount of research into the phytoplankton data." Always a good idea to do some legwork on your own. Here's something from the very first article I came across on long-term phytoplankton trends in the deep ocean, from Behrenfeld et. al 2006, in Nature: "We find a clear, strong correspondence between MEI variability and SeaWiFS-based anomalies in NPP (r2 = 0.77, P < 0.005) (Fig. 2a) and SigmaChl (Supplementary Fig. 3). An increase in the MEI (that is, warmer conditions) results in a decrease in NPP and SigmaChl, and vice versa." NPP = net primary production, largely consisting of phytoplankton, and SigmaChl (it was an actual sigma symbol in the article) = sum of chlorophyll, also a measure of phytoplankton. SeaWiFS is a satellite sensor, described as having readings remarkably close to those obtained by boat. As a satellite instrument this obviously has an enormous advantage over on-site observations because it is able to provide coverage of the oceans in their entirety. The article has nice color-coded maps showing where phytoplankton increases with temperature (i.e. near land) and where it decreases with temperature (everywhere else). Most of the studies I found dealt with near-land observations, especially in the North Sea. The long-term trend in these studies is of increased phytoplankton, but (as you can see from Behrenfeld's spiffy maps) the regions of decline are much, much larger than the regions of increase. It's not a complete literature review or anything. But so far what I've seen in the scientific literature is consistent with the article and contradicts JeffID. But hey, don't trust either of us...look for yourself. My opinion: JeffID is counting on you not doing so. He wants you to think he has, though. My question to JeffID: can you show us some of this data that you claim contradicts "this propaganda" which we would have to be "absolute idiots" to believe?
  • bobbellinhell
    You won't have to wait for anyone to kick your door down. If the oceanic phytoplankton die off, you won't have any oxygen to breathe, and will be able to suffocate in the privacy of your own home.
  • Well, maybe, but it should be debated by people who know and understand the available information and not just sneered at blindly. Look up "appeal to incredulity."

    The change in global temperature sounds small when you put it like that--as a percentage, averaged over the globe.... BUT, of course the relevant temperature change in this case isn't the global average, it's the sea surface temperature in the particular place the plankton is trying to grow. In some cases the change from the 1971-2000 average is six times the globally averaged change in near-surface air temperatures for the last 100 years. So there's that.

    There's also the fact that the Dalhousie researchers are basing their conclusions on observations and analysis. I think that refuting it requires superior observations and analysis. You saying "PFFT I doubt it" doesn't really rise to that standard.
  • david_fta
    Warmer oceans and CO2 are beneficial to phytoplankton ... so grow so fast that they strip the upper layers of the ocean of other nutrients (Mg, N, P, etc) faster than they can be replenished by upwelling bottom water. This process is exacerbated by the fact that the ocean is being warmed at its surface, at the bottom of the atmosphere. Because the surface layers are warmed first, they become less dense, so that vertical mixing (with colder deeper water that contains the nutrients the phytoplankton need) slows down. A better description of this process is on the Science Daily website "Marine Phytoplankton Declining: Striking Global Changes at the Base of the Marine Food Web Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures". That story should help you get past this misunderstanding.
  • anja247
    it's amazing how many commenters are instant experts* who can consign a publication from Nature to the bin with a shrug, after a quick read of a newspaper article. considering the abysmal funding of marine biology and oceanography research, i think it's a miracle they managed to collect and analyse the patchwork of historic data. it must have been a huge undertaking. the results are cause for concern, most definitely. *...yes, i actually *am* qualified to comment.
  • Deny all you want. The community of scientists who have been studying the issue since 1896 has considerably more credibility than you.

    ("global warming is caused by man" is a concept that was born in 1896, that being the year that the idea was first put forward that since a) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and b) burning coal resulted in dumping millions of years worth of trapped carbon dioxide back into the air all at once, that c) our fossil fuel use would eventually warm the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect was described by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, and carbon dioxide's greenhouse properties were proven in laboratory experiments by John Tyndall in 1859--so some of these issues have been researched by scientists for about 200 years now)
  • LoveIsOnlyRequired
    Who said anything about feeling guilty? I do agree the media can be used to encourage feelings of fear or greed for their own agenda. The emotionally out of control can be swayed like I am to cake. However your objection to eco nazis. What are you actually doing about it? Is this an attempt to promote your theory (or maybe reality) to encourage a higher consciousness in the general public? Why waste your time? A need to change others is really a need to change yourself. (I see myself being slightly hypocritical here....oops never mind) If you think that someone has power over you because of their position in society then dont be fooled. You have power over you so why should you worry about it?
  • rumpledumplin
    No, you are just scientifically illiterate..
  • Tom
    Actually, the media is responsible for giving the minority of conspiracy theorists like you airtime, which plays right into the hands of big business who don't want to see a carbon tax or any equivalent start eating into their profits. There are no profits to be made from scaling back consumption and limiting outsourcing, which means that people like you are exactly what corporations want: someone to muddy the water with pig-headed denialism to prevent the people of this earth actually getting on and dealing with the biggest crisis to global security since the standoff between Kennedy and Kruschev back in 1962.
  • david_fta
    Warmer oceans and more CO2 is beneficial to phytoplankton ... PROVIDED the rate at which surface waters warm up is not so great as to increase ocean stratification. The reason? Ocean stratification means that the water at the bottom of the ocean tends to stay at the bottom, the water at the top stays on top. The surface water get stripped of nutrients by the plankton growing in the warmer conditions, the planktonic biomass goes up the ocean food chain until whatever ate it last dies and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. But by this time, there's no more upwelling to replenish surface nutrients, so dissolved CO2 isn't converted to biomass, the sea just goes more acidic. If you want to read about how and why the rest of what you write is incorrect, check out the story on Science Daily website "Marine Phytoplankton Declining: Striking Global Changes at the Base of the Marine Food Web Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures". I hope this helps.
  • -shameless era started when Money is in need in the materialist society,All holy books say the same: all kings will be rich when they sell the dignity of the women (Jerusalem). Beast will put his stamp on the head or on the hand,the one who follow him ;will be drinking from the pool of blood. The day will come when the people are busy with the piece of bone while their dignity is going forever because someone will us them as slave in their farms. Holy Qur'an says : surah 17-al-isra(4) "and we gave warning to the children of israel in the book,that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would be punished)". what more Mischief than this happening in the world . why why why you sell your dignity? you will loss at the end! people who revenge because they were abused in the history will abuse you too!learn from history!? nothing is accidental!many is cooked! you all are on the ques.
  • dajazz
    perhaps you were just being funny?...the article was mentioning "the dead sea", not The Dead Sea. I had the same thoughts, myself at first....
  • Personal attacks are the immediate resort of the incompetent. In your example I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the future temperature of the house, nor would I use it as an excuse to waste $150 billion on poor global warming science instead of aiding those in various immediate dangers.
  • Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Observer reports hundreds are dying from cold in Peru while billions are wasted on futile, pretentious and posturing attempts to prevent global warming.
  • rogerhq
    Are you trying to be funny? Dubbaya already tried that. It failed. About Global Warming there is one important thing who has to be remembered: There is only one Earth. We can't afford to ignore the Wolfcry because it might be true.
  • david_fta
    gday derekcolman, Warmer oceans and more CO2 is beneficial to phytoplankton ... PROVIDED the rate at which surface waters warm up is not so great as to increase ocean stratification. The reason? Ocean stratification means that the water at the bottom of the ocean tends to stay at the bottom, the water at the top stays on top. The surface water get stripped of nutrients by the plankton growing in the warmer conditions, the planktonic biomass goes up the ocean food chain until whatever ate it last dies and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. But by this time, there's no more upwelling to replenish surface nutrients, so dissolved CO2 isn't converted to biomass, the sea just goes more acidic. The story on Science Daily website "Marine Phytoplankton Declining: Striking Global Changes at the Base of the Marine Food Web Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures" gives further explanation. Regarding demolition of greenhouse gas theory, I'm very interested in references other than to Ferenc Miskolczi's "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres". It's been fairly well refuted in various places (eg someone called Barton Paul Levenson has put "Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong" up on his website; the realclimate people have done something also, and Miskolcai's now in Wikipedia). I understand that the biggest disbelief suspension required to swallow Miskolczi is to accept his postulate that there is some master magician who, in direct disobedience of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, causes water vapour to precipitate out of the atmosphere as temperature increases. That is, demolition of AGW is wishful thinking. Regards
  • Anyone that uses the word "robust" in connection with climate change research cannot be taken seriously. They have been breathing the haunted air that fuels funding for research into global warming. Considering the human impact on fish and marine mammal populations over the last century rushing to judgment on causes of change in the ocean biosphere seems naive at best.
  • That is not what the article says: '"It's a very robust finding and we're very confident of it," said Daniel Boyce, the lead author of the study.' He is asserting there is no doubt the conclusions are true. He is not simply saying "We tested for one possible confounding factor and eliminated it." It is quite unlikely that it would be a simple matter conclusively to eliminate even that factor as other researchers noted. Robust is a political word, not a scientific one. A scientist says what he has done, what has tried to check for and control and what remains uncertain. A politician says that the science is settled.
  • cardigan
    The oceans are not acid now, they are not becoming acid and have never been acid, even at CO2 levels six and a half times greater than current levels. Ph levels vary from 7.4 to 8.4 in some areas and vary from night to day because of photosynthesis. Acid is less than pH 7. Rain water is pH 5.5 because it absorbs CO2, so why is sea water not the same? Because it is a natural buffer. The chemistry of the oceans has been known for many years, it hasn?t just been invented by the IPCC; Limnology and Oceanography 958 November 1972, V. 17 ..alkalinity already present in seawater can prevent severe pH excursions for periods of thousands of years even when reverse weathering is neglected. If reverse weathering is taken into account, then the buffering capacity of the CO2 system extends for much longer periods. The actual pH of seawater is fixed by any two relevant quantities and, as the alkalinity is controlled by the input of HC03- from weathering and the biogenic output of CaC03 and the Pco, below the thin wind-mixed layer is controlled by oxidation, the pH is determined primarily by biological processes. Of course, geochemical events, such as weathering ?. and chemical equilibria also play a role. Ocean acidification is more junk science.
  • cardigan
    Oh, by the way, bicarbonate is not acid, it is a component of most acid-indigestion tablets, I wonder why? You really should learn some basic chemistry before you repeat these mantras.
  • ChrisGK
    Oh here we go again. The Global Warming bandwagon has started rolling again. Hmmm, I think I will blame the fact that my PC mouse is useless on Global Warming. I mean..I want a piece of this bull. If I can prove that my mouse is playing up because of the increase in temperature, surely I can claim this back on the warranty? NO? Well, I was under the impression we could attribute any old bollox to global warming and financially gain from it!! Greedy b@stards want to tax us for EVERYTHING under the premise of NOTHING.
  • collinbrown
    I am a denier. You can peddle your pseudoscience until the moon develops a breathable atmosphere and fresh running water but in the meantime, I will continue to label you and your ilk, for what you all are - opportunistic-warmists, hellbent on fleecing the wallets of those susceptible to media brainwashing.
  • cardigan
    Warmer oceans and more CO2 are beneficial to phytoplankton, as they are to all photo-synthesing life forms, hence plankton numbers are higher in summer than winter, leading to plankton blooms in some oceans in the Spring. I suspect that this sweeping generalisation of "40% decline in phytoplankton" will not stand close examination, but the agenda is being ramped up as all institutions are now seeking to nullify Climategate and prepare for Cancun. Mixing of data is a classic source of error as in the hockeystick and in ice cores. Homogenous data back to 1899? I don't think so. Sampling methods are notoriously suspect: "Data recently collected in the northern Pacific Ocean shows two to three times more organic matter produced by photosynthesis than had been reported previously. Some biologists think that the open ocean has not been sampled often enough to catch periods of high productivity, resulting in !ow productivity assumptions. Others think that the sampling techniques themselves may have been responsible for erroneous results. Previous sampling methods and contaminated containers may be responsible for low estimates of productivity Phytoplankcton are delicate organisms that can easily be damaged by the collecting techniques" - Introduction to Marine Biology, by Karskint, Turner and Small. The Greens could of course lobby their environmmentally friendly and global warming-aware friends in Norway, who have huge factory ships in the Southern Ocean, sucking up plankton for health foods and cosmetics.
  • derekcolman
    Do these scientists ever try using common sense in these studies? If indeed the findings are correct, then common sense tells us it can not possibly be due to global warming. These organisms can not be that sensitive to small fluctuations in temperature or they would have died out eons ago. In fact to jump to that conclusion is extremely unhelpful, because it means they are not looking for the real cause. Humans are doing a lot of things that might adversely affect marine life, such as dumping chemical waste, fertiliser run off, plastic dumping and over fishing. I personally would plump for over fishing. Fish are the source of nutrients for phytoplankton and vice versa. Our heavy fishing is removing a substantial amount of nutrients from the oceans. Some of the commenters seem to have skipped this paragraph. "But some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations". No concensus then. But I do sympathise with the Dalhousie University, because they know they have to throw in the magic words "global warming" in order to get on the list for further funding for this important research.
  • You have to be scientifically illiterate to miss the fact that PH has not changed in a measurable way since 100 years ago. We didn't have the tech to measure to this accuracy.

    You have to be scientifically illiterate to not know that dead zones have been going on since there was life in the oceans - and lakes BTW.

    I've been working in science for over 20 years now --how about yourself?.

    Jeff Id - the Air Vent
  • You have to be an absolute idiot to believe this propaganda. Do a teenie tiny amount of research into the phytoplankton data. I read below about going green, organic, consumerism, you people are smart enough to tell us how to live yet too damned dumb to know plants grow better with more CO2 and in WARMER weather. If you don't believe me, look up some of the data. They mashed satellite data onto point measuremennts from 50 years ago. Nobody even knows if we have more or less phytoplankton, yet all you moron alarmists read this stupid (and it is stupid) editorial and go into shaking fits of anti-capitalism. Gee, do plants like warm or cold. Do plants like more or less CO2? Do plants like fertilizer waste? Does the iron thrown off by industry help or hurt? Look up the data and stop telling people what you don't know.
  • colibri1
    "Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming."

    It was beginning after the Second World War, i.e. in the 1950s, that widespread use of disposable plastics was begun and encouraged, and it has been since that time that the mind-bogglingly enormous plastic vortexes in oceans have grown. Recent studies have shown that in many places in the ocean, bits of plastic are more numerous than plankton in a given volume of seawater. Have any studies been done on the effect of plastic dumping on the reduction of ocean phytoplankton?
  • I like your criticism of the satellite data but it seems irrelevant to this paper because they didn't use the satellite data. Maybe the scientists aren't the idiot here?
  • At the time of Justice the size of the Wheat was at the size of DAT seeds! Now:God said in the Holy Qur'an: Surah 30-Al-Rum-section 5-41:"Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hand of men have earned,that (ALLAH) may7 give them a tast of some of their deeds:in order that they may turn back(from Evil)"42 what more mischief we see on this life when people having like this!!!! corruption & mischief is everywhere!
  • crashtestmonkey
    Nothing to do with billions of tons of rubbish and efluence pumped into the sea over the past 50 years then? How about the floating island of plastic 100m deep the size of Texas in the Atlantic? We are a self-destructive species. Look at every civilisation in the past 5,000 years. All have collapsed due to destroying the environment that supports them. Read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond or indeed any Jared Diamond book for a history of the human race suicidal destruction. In the past civilisations only destroyed their local eco-systems. Now we are destroying the whole planets eco-system with global dire consequences.
  • someofusknowthetruth
    You would have to be scientifically illiterate to not distinguish between terrestial and marine plants. You would have to be scientifically illiterate to not know that CO2 depresses pH and that most marine organisms are very sensitive to acidity. You'd have to be scientifically illiterate to not know that coral-algal symbiosis is highly dependent on the temperature not being too high. You'd have to be scientifically illiterate to not know that dead zones are frequently caused by excess nutrient [from run-off from over fertilised agricultural land]. Fortunately for you, the bulk of the population is scientifically illiterate, so you will have many people agree with you, despite the lunacy of your statements.
  • Midwinter1947
    Deny as much as you like - it won't change the facts. The biosphere is in crisis due (largely) to human factors. It is simply not possible to pollute the oceans with increasing amounts of heavy metals, chemical residues, plastics and waste over many years and expect there to be no impact (ditto the atmosphere). Our ever-increasing population and 'higher' living standards simply make the problem progressively worse.

    You may worry about the financial implications of tackling problems such as this and global warming but the financial implications of NOT tackling the problems early enough are likely to be much greater. Just think about the collapse of fishing world wide. Not only was that a hugely profitable industry, it also provided a large part of the diet of millions of people. Fish and seafood, for example, was the main source of protein for most 18th and 19th-century Londoners.
  • I agree with Collin Brown. There is no such thing as Global Warming. Or overpopulation. Or toxic waste. Or deforestation. Or extinction. Or anything else bad. Our planet is perfectly healthy and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG PEOPLE. GO BACK TO WORK AND KEEP SHOPPING.
  • LoveIsOnlyRequired
    Regardless of whether global warming is true or untrue surely it just makes sense to look after our environment. Why would we be so careless as to increase suffering for animals, damage ecosystems uncessarily and just generally make our environment full of rubbish and smog.

    If we asked, as a society, are we being reckless in our actions? It is very difficult say that we arnt and recklessness usually gives way to harm on some level.

    It just makes sense the more we carry on doing something that is damaging something will have to occur that will push us away from the current stationary point. All I hope is that the change is gradual and we hit a new system equilibrium that is sustainable....but noboby knows if this will occur or not. We simply do not know but this is not justification for a reckless selfish behaviour.
  • Brilliant analysis! You have convinced me, sir! What are you going to do to follow that one up?? Maybe howl and throw poop???
  • thomas_66
    You have already been brainwashed, as your attitude to reasoned, independent, verifiable scientific knowledge shows. You just don't seem to know it.
  • "When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money."
  • Tom
    Children enjoy repetition, but it becomes wearisome in debate. I could ask to to verify your extraordinary claims such as that man is only responsible for "000.1% of warming" (should that read 0.1% anyway?), or ask you to explain how a concern for the environment based on reasoned scientific analysis is in any way related to National Socialism, or even ask you (heaven forbid!) to respond to my points in the above post, but I feel I would be wasting my time. But I take heart. Truth and facts will triumph in the end. You may go to the grave a denier, but the majority of people on the planet are wiser, saner and more disposed to reason than you have made out in your comments. This is not to say that debate itself is forbidden (as many of 'your ilk' like to claim), far from it; but you have hardly shown a willingness to engage in adult debate thus far, have you?
  • One of the problems of contextualising any contemporary scientific data is the problem of credible historical and comparative record. Historical evidence is only finite and the resulting hypothesis is at best from a very contemporary perspective. However, the present study is worrying. We had lived through warm seas before. Vines adorned the Cornish and Kentish plains in Roman times. However, the man made waste and overfishing is having a major impact as it is likely to have. However, in the age of the nation state, we are so clouded by national interest that little in the way or reparation is likely to come out of it.
  • nonsheep
    Reminds me of an indian cree proverb,,,,,, Not until the last fish has been caught The last tree has been felled The last river poisoned Will man realise, you cannot eat money
  • hardrain_gonnafall
    I wonder what colour the clouds are in your world.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date

Sponsored Links