63

Twenty years ago, a 40km diameter alien saucer came to Earth, and stopped 2km above the Atlantic ocean, somewhere near the midpoint between Casablanca, Morroco and Natal, Brazil but over international waters. It is completely opaque, reflects no light or radar (but still irradiates IR as any object at room temperature) and has absolutely no lights on. Just a disk of blackness.

To be more precise, the means on how the disk hovers at that position and how it dissipates the radiation it absorbs is beyond the scope of the question.

It has been completely immobile since then. No contact. Today (in the fictional world) is somewhere in 2017. Earth is the same otherwise.

What would be the effects its shadow cause on the ocean and the oceanic life beneath it?


EDIT: To address several concerns commenters posted below,

I don't want to develop the whole scenario in one question. It would be very broad. So following stackexchange guidelines, I broke it up into smaller aspects. The other aspects are considered irrelevant for the scope of this particular question.

Therefore the following factors do not affect the ocean below:

  • Propulsion: There is none. It has no thrusters and makes no wind downards.

  • Irradiation: All the sunlight the disk absorbs is not irradiated outwards. Although it gives off the same amount of IR radiation as the surrounding air (at 2km high).

  • Gravity: It does not significantly affects gravity at the surface of the ocean. So it has no tidal impact.

  • Thickness: the disk is very thin. Its thickness when compared with its altitude and diameter is negligible.

  • Stability: people have landed on top of it, and it didn't tilt a single minute (of a degree). It is very stable, and not even a hurricane could nudge it.

Mindwin Remember Monica
  • 14,591
  • 6
  • 50
  • 103

9 Answers9

143

The ocean is a dynamic and very large place, so it's unlikely to have many large-scale effects unless humans overreact. I'll focus on the local, immediate effects of this saucer from a physical, biological, and chemical perspective.

Some things to consider about the location of the saucer- it's suspended in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, almost directly above the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. We're a little bit above the equator and thus miss the strong, surface equatorial currents and instead have a slow surface velocity of 1-2 km/day. We have strong, driving trade winds from the northeast and are almost at the edge of the ITCZ.

Physics

Let's explore the physics of such an object before we start working with the ecosystem. The biggest change will be the shadow cast by such an object- given that it absorbs all light, it's going to cast a pretty big shadow. Because it's pretty close to the surface relative to the size of the object, we'll mainly have a solid umbra- total darkness. Near the edge, we'll have the penumbra, and finally we get back into normal light conditions.

However, the ship also probably has some mass- this may affect tides and will certainly affect sea height nearby, but as I don't have any idea about the density or thickness of such an object, I can't do more than mention it.

Biology

The best way to model this addition is to treat the area within the umbra as suddenly a part of the aphotic zone. This is normally the deepest portion of the ocean, where no light reaches, and is home to all of our favorite little beasties. Suddenly, the aphotic zone extends to the surface in a single location, which causes a restructuring of the local ecosystem.

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton require sunlight to live. The sun powers photosynthesis, and without light, they'll rapidly die. It's worth noting that these creatures wouldn't simply swim outside of the shadow- they're unable to swim at all, which is why they're considered plankton (literally, "drifter"). So all the plankton in our shadow die within a day or two and deposit a huge amount of carbon onto the seafloor, but as that's a one-time event, I won't spend too much time on it. Essentially, we no longer have a primary producer in the area, but that only reinforces the deep-sea model.

Given that we have surface currents of 1-2 km/day and the saucer is about 40km wide, that's plenty of time for any poor phytoplankton pulled underneath to starve- especially the little guys.

Zooplankton

At first, I assumed that zooplankton would be pretty happy about this event. The big change for them here is their diel vertical migration. Zooplankton feed at the surface during the nighttime when they can't be seen and eaten, and descend to the deep sea during the day. Initially, this implies that they'd suddenly have a horizontal daily migration as well, but they aren't designed for that. Plankton move easily and readily vertically in the water column because they're able to control their buoyancy, not because they're strong swimmers. Even though they would love to move in and out of the shadow at will, they simply don't have that capability.

Interestingly, the very first time your saucer appeared, it would cause this same daily vertical migration because the zooplankton would think it's nighttime- essentially emulating the effects of a solar eclipse. They'd feast voraciously, run out of food, and shortly die.

Nekton

Bigger creatures, on the other hand, would be stoked. "Nekton" is a term that includes all creatures that move under their own power, and they've been given a huge present by this saucer- the ability to move between night and day at will. Normally, creatures in the ocean have very different activities during the day and night, usually as a predation/predation avoidance mechanism. Now, they're able to swim out into the sunlight, feed on clearly visible organisms, and disappear back into the shadow within a few minutes, not 12 hours.

This behavior is why fish are often found under piers, boats, or rafts of seaweed- it serves as a place to hide from predators both above and below.

Benthic creatures

Essentially wouldn't care. They're too deep in the ocean to notice the difference between day and night, so they wouldn't notice that the diurnal cycle has stopped. They aren't even affected by the sudden disappearance of the marine snow from above because particles sink much more slowly than the ocean currents in this location, so they're still being fed by carbon from the NADW.

Seabirds

I'm not a bird person, so there may be more helpful information about this group coming from somewhere else. We wouldn't expect to find many birds to begin with, but they may start colonizing your saucer if it doesn't have some way of keeping them off- which might be a good idea for the aliens to do anyway. Nothing can ruin the aesthetics of a mysterious levitating saucer like bird poop. If the birds were able to land on it, they'd probably be pretty excited- it's a good spot to stop for a rest if you're migrating, and there will be some interesting marine life behavior below that they may be able to capitalize on.

Chemistry

Now that we've killed off the phytoplankton, one might expect that we'd see $O_2$ concentrations plummet in the surface ocean. However, that would only happen for a few days or months, until all the respirers are dead as well. What would happen over 20 years is the transfer of oxygen into the water that would slowly raise the concentrations again. We can see that best on a concentration-depth profile:

O2 concentration with depth

$O_2$ actually increases in the deep sea because there's no longer much consuming it. This is the same thing we'd expect to happen under our alien saucer's shadow.

Recap

What your saucer has done is essentially take the normal vertical light distribution in the ocean and make it horizontal. Rather than moving from a euphotic to a disphotic to an aphotic zone by travelling vertically in the water column, the same sequence happens horizontally. This doesn't affect much on the 20-year scale because only nekton would be able to use it to any advantage. Essentially, expect the ocean to do what the ocean does best- change a little in a lot of ways.

Some thoughts, brought up by commenters and other answers

Pressure differential

Deep sea fish are famous for living under pressure, but they don't need it to stay alive. Fish have control over the amount of gas in their swim bladders, and as long as they're given enough time to rise to the surface they won't experience barotrauma. As to whether or not deep sea creatures actually colonize the surface, I don't know- we don't have a ton of data on this phenomenon. I find it hard to imagine that over 20 years there would be no interaction, but it probably won't be a full-scale surface invasion. Deep-sea fish are pretty happy to stay in the deep sea.

Light requirements

A couple comments and an answer have pointed out that it's not going to be pitch black underneath. I agree with that! However, it's not just any light that's useful. Photosynthesis requires rather a large amount of direct sunlight or it simply won't operate at all. In the ocean, this boundary is the difference between the euphotic zone and the so-called "disphotic zone". This depends on the turbidity of the water, but in the open ocean is about 100m. Additionally, photosynthesis operates best with blue light- the same wavelength that is scattered best by air. If the light is coming in at an angle, a lot of the blue light is removed and no longer able to power photosynthesis. I'd argue that any area directly under the saucer is more accurately modeled by the disphotic zone.

Dubukay
  • 12,154
  • 6
  • 36
  • 73
  • 13
    One criticism - only the very weakest birds ever stop during a long migration. Reason is that they make very substantial metabolic changes in preparation for the migration that take *weeks* to repeat. If there is any reasonable expectation of being able to complete the migration (and yes, birds DO know where they are, the mechanisms are unclear) they will continue uninterrupted. Any birds that do stop may actually decline to continue; and since self-selected for migratory weakness, likely diverge rapidly from the original population. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 12 '17 at 21:50
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Monica Cellio Dec 17 '17 at 04:25
  • @MonicaCellio Um, that was a lot of info to move elsewhere, some of which was still relevant to the answer- and I didn’t think there was one, continuous discussion going on but rather the large amount of comments was due to the popularity of the question. Is it possible to move some of those back? I’m thinking specifically about Pieter’s comment on seabirds, which would be good to have here since I admit that I’m not a bird person – Dubukay Dec 17 '17 at 05:15
  • I restored that one. Most of the comments were 2 days old (or older), and a lot were from you. The best way to respond to requests for clarification or constructive feedback is to edit the post. Otherwise, after a time they're often presumed obsolete. There were 28 comments on this post and the odds of anybody being able to find valuable info in a pile that large are low. Thanks for understanding. – Monica Cellio Dec 17 '17 at 05:23
  • @MonicaCellio Totally! I agree that it has gotten out of hand- was just worried that some good info I hadn’t thought of had also disappeared. Thanks! – Dubukay Dec 17 '17 at 05:41
38

Why is it that in questions like this about something blocking light, everyone seems to forget that the Earth rotates? To simplify the geometry, we'll use the following assumptions: the saucer has a flat bottom (it doesn't curve to follow the Earth), so the 2 km altitude is measured from the center of the saucer; the saucer is located on the equator, and it's the equinox, so the sun passes directly overhead the center of the saucer; the sun is point light source so we aren't worried about umbras, just either shadow or not; and we'll ignore the curvature of the Earth.

We're assuming the Earth to be flat in this case because simple trigonometry (assuming the Earth to be a sphere 6,371 km in radius) shows that if the center of the saucer is at a height of 2 km, the edge of the saucer is at a height of 2.03 km above the surface, which is a trivial difference and can be ignored.

So, that all said...

From a point on the surface of the ocean under the center of the ship, it spans 168.6 degrees of the sky, which means 11.4 degrees of visible sky (obviously 5.7 degrees on either side). Given 12 hours for the sun to cross the sky, that's 45 minutes of daylight, minimum.

However, also something to take into account: Roughly 5% of the light you get on a clear, sunny day doesn't come from the sun directly, it comes from scattered light due to the atmosphere. While a good portion of the sky will be blocked so you only a cylinder of airglow around the horizon, that's still light. It might not seem like much, but for comparison the full moon is only 0.00025% as bright as the sun, and a full moon provides a surprising amount of light once your eyes adapt.

Even underneath the center of the ship, with the most sky blocked, you'll get 45 minutes of direct sunlight and some residual light the rest of the day in the worst-case (ignoring weather, of course). As you go away from the center, the effect rapidly decreases, very quickly for the north and south. By the time you go 20 km east or west, the worst case gives you 6 hours of direct sun.

So, how about going north or south? If you go 5 km north or south (and again assume the sun goes directly overhead for simplicity), the ship covers 151 degrees of the sun's path, giving you almost two hours of direct sunlight. Go 10 km north or south, it's 4 hours of direct light. Go 15 km, 6.5 hours of direct sunlight (and increasing sky brightness). And of course at 20 km, basically a full 12 hours.

Long story: the actual area under the ship where it's dark is never completely dark for 24 hours, and doesn't actually occupy a very large area compared to the total area of ocean directly under the ship. Ecological effects are fairly minimal because air and water currents are going to rapidly dissipate cooling effects (so no real weather effects) and sweep phytoplankton and other light-requiring organisms into the area of near-perpetual dark, so it will not be lifeless. You'll see a higher prevalence of organisms that come to the surface at night in the center of the zone, but it's so comparatively small as to be measurable but largely insignificant.

Keith Morrison
  • 21,416
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76
  • Omg rotation! Now, is there any point in the disk shadow that is permanently dark? – Mindwin Remember Monica Dec 13 '17 at 00:06
  • 8
    The central area will only get sunrise/sunset though, when the light is not very strong as it must go through a lot of atmosphere. @Mindwin if you want more obscurity just make the saucer hover at 100 meters rather than 2 kilometers high. – Nicolas Raoul Dec 13 '17 at 03:41
  • 2
    I live above the Arctic Circle where, from the first week of December to the second week of January, the sun doesn't come above the horizon. At noon, even on December 21st, shortest day of the year, it's still bright enough at noon to turn off streetlights and read outside. – Keith Morrison Dec 13 '17 at 04:13
  • We have 5 % shadow light on a clear day because there are no many $\rm 40 ,km$ wide umbrellas out there. Light reduces rapidly with distance (inverse square law).
  • The center of the object will be $\rm 30 ,m$ “higher” than the horizon due to earth circumference.To get to the center it would require the saucer to reflect down some of this light, which it cannot.
  • There is not enough atmosphere inside the shadow to disperse or bend (by refraction) a significant amount of light from the borders to the center since the object is just $\rm 2 ,km$ of altitude.
  • – J. Manuel Dec 13 '17 at 08:53
  • @KeithMorrison This is due to the fact that the $\rm 40 ,km$ thick atmosphere above you, bends down and disperse some sun light for you. Since this object is just $\rm 2 ,km$ this effect won’t take place. – J. Manuel Dec 13 '17 at 09:07
  • @J. Manuel, think about the geometry. I simplified giving a flat surface of the Earth, but a curved surface gives a point in the center very slightly more than the 45 minutes of light or so, assuming the bottom of the object is flat, because as it goes toward the horizon the distance between the saucer and the surface increases as the Earth falls away slightly. As you just helpfully pointed out. – Keith Morrison Dec 13 '17 at 16:12
  • @nicolasraoul I don't want more obscurity or less obscurity. I just want to know the impacts on the oceanic ecosystem if a disk of that size were at that location. Just that. – Mindwin Remember Monica Dec 13 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    The angle sunlight comes through the atmosphere has a huge impact on the energy it imparts. Enough light to read/drive by is very different from enough light to sustain life. Even if the light intensity didn't change with the angle, 45 minutes of sunlight vs. 12 hours of sunlight, that's a 93% reduction at the center. – Mr.Mindor Dec 13 '17 at 18:28
  • 1
    Also, the amount of light does not increase rapidly as you travel from the center(in east west direction), quite the opposite. As you travel east, you get a larger window of light in the morning, but a smaller one in the evening. You have to travel 9.8km from the center to get a full hour of light.(11 degrees morning, 3.8 degrees evening) and at just 1 km from the edge you are reduced to less than 4 and a half hours. – Mr.Mindor Dec 13 '17 at 18:34
  • 3
    This whole analysis assumes the sun passes directly overhead of the ship. It will only do so 1 day per year. The rest of the year the earth's tilt will be different and more light will reach further under the ship. – Dunk Dec 13 '17 at 19:13
  • 3
    @Dunk, that's why I kept specifying things like worst case scenario. The further off the equator, the more light will get underneath. – Keith Morrison Dec 13 '17 at 21:47