Antarctic ice melt could cut ocean circulation by 40% by 2050, study warns

It appears to be kicking into gear right now. That's headline news.
A paleoclimatologist's reaction to findings that Antarctic ice melt is accelerating ocean circulation decline.

Antarctic meltwater is slowing ocean overturning circulation twice as fast as North Atlantic decline, potentially reducing deepwater flows by 40% within 27 years. Reduced ocean circulation threatens the marine food chain by limiting nutrient upwelling that supports 75% of global phytoplankton production in Southern Ocean.

  • Antarctic deepwater circulation could decline by 40% by 2050
  • Decline would occur twice as fast as North Atlantic weakening
  • Southern Ocean supports approximately 75% of global phytoplankton production
  • Study used 35 million computing hours over two years

New research shows rapidly melting Antarctic ice could reduce ocean circulation by 40% by 2050, disrupting global climate patterns, nutrient distribution, and marine ecosystems.

The Antarctic ice sheet is melting faster than the planet's ocean circulation systems can absorb, and the consequences are beginning to ripple outward in ways that climate models have largely overlooked until now. A study published in Nature this week found that the great conveyor belt of seawater that moves heat, nutrients, and oxygen around the globe could slow by as much as 40 percent by 2050—a decline that would unfold twice as rapidly as similar weakening in the North Atlantic, the better-studied cousin of this Antarctic system.

The mechanism is straightforward in its brutality. As Antarctic ice melts, freshwater pours into the ocean, diluting the salt content of surface waters. Saltier water is denser and sinks toward the seafloor, driving the deep circulation that has remained stable for millennia. Less salt means less density, which means less sinking, which means the whole system begins to stall. Researchers spent two years running 35 million computing hours through various climate models to reach this conclusion, testing scenarios all the way to mid-century. What they found was stark enough that Alan Mix, a paleoclimatologist at Oregon State University and contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called it "stunning" and "headline news"—the kind of thing that appears to be "kicking into gear right now."

The implications extend far beyond the physics of water movement. The Southern Ocean, fed by these upwelling currents, produces roughly three-quarters of the world's phytoplankton—the microscopic organisms that form the base of nearly every marine food chain. When circulation slows, nutrients that have accumulated in the deep stay there. The surface waters become starved. Phytoplankton decline. Everything that depends on them, from krill to fish to whales, faces a thinning food supply. The ocean's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide also diminishes as surface layers become more stratified, unable to mix with deeper water. More CO2 stays in the atmosphere. The warming accelerates.

What makes this research particularly unsettling is what it does not include. The models did not account for feedback loops—the possibility that warm water intrusions into Antarctic ice shelves could trigger even faster melting, which would dump even more freshwater into the ocean, which would slow circulation further. Matthew England, an oceanographer at the University of New South Wales and one of the study's authors, noted that the effect of meltwater on ocean circulation has been absent from the complex climate scenarios the IPCC uses to project future change. That omission is about to become a problem. Steve Rintoul, a researcher at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, emphasized that these are "massive volumes of water" that have been stable for a very long time. Their destabilization is not a marginal concern.

Mix offered a final observation that captures the study's restraint: it does not include "the disaster scenarios." In that sense, he said, it is "actually kind of conservative." The 40 percent decline by 2050 may be the optimistic version of what is coming.

It appears to be kicking into gear right now. That's headline news.
— Alan Mix, paleoclimatologist, Oregon State University
If we slow the sinking near Antarctica, we slow down the whole circulation and so we also reduce the amount of nutrients that get returned from the deep ocean back up to the surface.
— Steve Rintoul, CSIRO
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Inventor

Why does it matter that Antarctic ice is melting specifically, rather than ice melting anywhere else on Earth?

Model

Because Antarctica sits at the bottom of the world, and the ocean circulation there is the engine that drives nutrient distribution across the entire Southern Ocean. When that engine slows, it affects the base of the food chain everywhere.

Inventor

The study mentions this could happen twice as fast as North Atlantic decline. Why the difference?

Model

The Antarctic system is more sensitive to freshwater input. The North Atlantic has been studied longer, so we have more data on it. But the Antarctic circulation appears to be more fragile—more responsive to the dilution effect of meltwater.

Inventor

If three-quarters of global phytoplankton come from the Southern Ocean, what happens to the other quarter?

Model

They're in other regions, but they're not enough to compensate. The Southern Ocean is disproportionately productive. Losing that productivity cascades through every ecosystem that depends on it.

Inventor

The article mentions the models didn't include feedback loops. What would a feedback loop look like?

Model

Warm water intrudes into ice shelves, melts them faster, dumps more freshwater into the ocean, slows circulation further, which allows even warmer water to penetrate deeper. Each step makes the next one worse.

Inventor

So the 40 percent figure could be conservative?

Model

Very much so. It's the decline the models show without those amplifying effects. If the feedback loops activate, the slowdown could be steeper and happen sooner.

Inventor

What's the timeline we're looking at?

Model

Twenty-seven years. By 2050. That's not centuries away—it's within the working lifetime of people alive now.

Quer a matéria completa? Leia o original em Reuters ↗
Fale Conosco FAQ