Planet's Darkening Oceans Pose Threat To Marine Life, Scientists Say (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0177828361
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/28/118244/planets-darkening-oceans-pose-threat-to-marine-life-scientists-say
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/27/planets-darkening-oceans-pose-threat-marine-life-scientists-say
> Satellite data and numerical modelling revealed that more than a fifth of the global ocean darkened between 2003 and 2022, reducing the band of water that life reliant on sunlight and moonlight can thrive in. The effect is evident across 75m sq km (30m sq miles) of ocean, equivalent to the land area of Europe, Africa, China and North America combined, and disturbs the upper layer of water where 90% of marine species live.
>
> Dr Thomas Davies, a marine conservationist at the University of Plymouth, said the findings were a "genuine cause for concern," with potentially severe implications for marine ecosystems, global fisheries and the critical turnover of carbon and nutrients in the oceans. Most marine life thrives in the photic zones of the world's oceans, the surface layers that allow sufficient light through for organisms to exploit. While sunlight can reach a kilometre beneath the waves, in practice there is little below 200 metres.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/27/planets-darkening-oceans-pose-threat-marine-life-scientists-say
You don't know the power of the dark side (Score:2)
Sith fish...
Accelerates global warming as well? (Score:2)
It seems to me that the darker water will absorb more light, which in effect means that the oceans are warming faster than they otherwise would.
This strikes me as yet another example of climate change predictions being inaccurate because "we don't know what we don't know". Excessive warming can create conditions which increase the rate of warming even further, and there can be quite a delay between the occurrence of those conditions and our recognition of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Black asphalt also absorbs more light, but radiates it back as heat. Darker things absorb more, but also radiate more.
Emissivity [Re:Accelerates global warming as well] (Score:2)
> Black asphalt also absorbs more light, but radiates it back as heat. Darker things absorb more, but also radiate more.
Dark things only radiate more than light things if they are black in the infrared as well as in the visible.
For example, concrete, which looks white, has an emissivity of 0.85. Switching it to asphalt only increases that to 0.93, about a nine percent increase in emissivity, despite the 300 percent in absorption.
Re: (Score:2)
> Darker things absorb more, but also radiate more
Yep, but as infrared, which is precisely the wavelengths that atmospheric CO2 absorbs.
Absorption depth [Re:Accelerates global warmin...] (Score:3)
> It seems to me that the darker water will absorb more light, which in effect means that the oceans are warming faster than they otherwise would.
The darkening described here is the absorption depth for light that has already passed through the surface of the ocean. What is happening is that light that used to penetrate deeper into the ocean is now only reaching shallower depths. But either way, it is absorbed by the ocean, it's just the depth of absorption that changes.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me, then, that "darkening" is the wrong word for the authors to use in describing what is happening. "Darkening" implies greater absorption and penetration which seems to be the opposite of what is happening (assuming that I understand what is being described). "Brightening" implies less absorption and less penetration, at least to me, but perhaps that isn't a good adverb either. What would be a less confusing word to describe the change in the ocean's reaction to light??
Warmer upper layers = more life? (Score:2)
While I suppose it's possible that this will be traced back to more microplastics, what are the chances that warmer upper layers of water as global temps rise is leading to an explosion of algae, which leads to an explosion of zooplankton? I know in aquariums (a much smaller system admittedly), warmer temps when a thermostat goes haywire can lead to algal blooms, even when it's just a degree or so off nominal. And out in the ocean, I'd think even a minor algal bloom covering the top hundred to hundred-fifty
Interesting to know why (Score:2)
But it appears that the reason for the darkening, especially far away from land is unknown.
> The oceans darken when light finds it harder to penetrate the water. It is often seen along coastlines where upwellings of cold, nutrient rich water rise to the surface, and where rainfall sweeps nutrients and sediments from the land into the water.
> The drivers for darkening far offshore are less clear.
Which means more research is needed, but now must be done with less funding... A virtuous circle of sorts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is an entire planet that can fund research into this. It does not have to be solely on the back of the American taxpayer to fund everything on the planet.
Re: (Score:1)
> There is an entire planet that can fund research into this. It does not have to be solely on the back of the American taxpayer to fund everything on the planet.
That's right. Our money should be reserved for tax breaks for billionaires. Research is for other rubes.
Re: (Score:1)
you're quite the dumbfuck to think you're paying for "everything".
Entire planet (Score:3)
> It does not have to be solely on the back of the American taxpayer to fund everything on the planet.
It also doesn't have to be on your taxpayers' back to fund the tax cuts, subsidies and government contracts that supports the mega-corps that are most responsible for the environmental damage that needs to be investigated by said research.
i.e.: Yes, Papua New Guniea -- random example -- isn't funding that much environmental research.
On the other hand Papua New Guniea isn't either one of the biggest emitter of CO2, user of oil, hoster ExxonMobil, or supporter of conflict in the middle east to gather even mo
Re: (Score:1)
I know right, the USA has little concern with the oceans. Except for the east coast. And the west coast. And the Navy. And the fishing industry. And the tourism industry. And the oil industry. And the shipping industry. And the weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Worldwide we have an aging population and that means by definition that we're going to retire far more people over the next 10 years than we graduate from school. The workforce as a percentage of the population will decrease. The graduates of the next decade have already been born.
The point is that it'll force more of our resources towards paying for people who aren't participating in the workforce. Either we'll stop taking care of our elderly parents (not likely) or every other part of our society is go
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention. We were talking about global research, not nation-specific research.