Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Oceans' Growing Acidity Alarms Scientists
WASHINGTON - Seven hundred miles west of Seattle in the Pacific at Ocean Station Papa, a first-of-its-kind buoy is anchored to monitor a looming environmental catastrophe.
Forget about sea levels rising as glaciers and polar ice melt, and increasing water temperatures affecting global weather patterns. As the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they're gradually becoming more acidic.
And some scientists fear that the change may be irreversible.
At risk are sea creatures up and down the food chain, from the tiniest phytoplankton and zooplankton to whales, from squid to salmon to crabs, coral, oysters and clams.
The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic.
"Everything points to dramatic effects," said Richard Feely, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle. "There are suggestions the entire ecosystem could change over time."
Originally, scientists thought the oceans could be one of the solutions to the buildup of greenhouse gases, as they absorb about one-third of the carbon dioxide that's emitted worldwide. But they now know that the fundamental chemistry of the oceans has changed, and the possible impacts seem to grow more nightmarish as research accelerates.
"It seems like it is a one-way street, and that is alarming," said Steven Emerson, a professor of oceanography at the University of Washington. "The pH of the oceans could be lowered permanently."
Emerson was the lead scientist on the team that built the buoy at Ocean Station Papa, where weather measurements have been taken since the 1940s. The 10-foot-diameter buoy is equipped with an array of sensors that, among other things, measure the amount of carbon dioxide that's being absorbed by the North Pacific and the pH, or acid levels, of the ocean. Anchored in water 5,000 feet deep, the buoy relays its information to onshore scientists via satellite.
Of all the oceans in the world, the North Pacific could be the most vulnerable to acidification.
As the oceans' deepest waters circulate around the globe, they eventually arrive in the North Pacific, where they rise near the surface before plunging deep again to continue their global journey. When the water arrives in the North Pacific, it's already acidic from the carbon produced by decaying organic material during its 1,000-year journey from the North Atlantic through the Indian Ocean and across the Pacific, Feely said.
As it surfaces, or upwells, in the North Pacific, the water absorbs even more carbon dioxide from the air. Cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warm water does.
"The older water is in the Pacific, the newer water is in the Atlantic," Feely said. "There's 10 percent more carbon dioxide in the Pacific than in the Atlantic."
Corrosive water 600 to 700 feet deep already has been detected off the continental shelf of Washington state, Oregon and Alaska, Feely said.
"It's butting right up against the coast," he said. "The concern is when it gets to the continental shelf, what it will do to the fisheries."
The increasing acidity can eat away at the shells of crabs, oysters, clams and nearly microscopic organisms known as krill and pteropods. It also inhibits calcification, the process in which these animals rebuild their shells. Without shells, most of the animals probably would die.
Krill and pteropods are a major food source for juvenile salmon, herring, pollock, cod, mackerel and other fish.
"When you start messing with the lower end of the food chain, it can dramatically affect the higher end of the food chain," Feely said.
Squid also are sensitive to higher acidity, which affects their blood circulation and respiration. Colonies of coral, including those in tropical waters and those found deep off the Northwest coast, could disappear.
Feely said that 500 million to 1 billion people worldwide depended on fish for survival. Sharp declines in fish populations would affect their lives.
Eventually, the acidification will reach into inland waters, affecting oyster beds and clamming areas.
Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would create a comprehensive ocean-acidification research and monitoring program. A similar measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Cantwell said she expected her Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee of the Commerce Committee to hold hearings in the Northwest on ocean acidification early next year.
"It's a little-known fact, not widely understood, but it is clear our oceans are suffering," Cantwell said.
A San Francisco environmental group, the Center for Biodiversity, has asked 10 states - Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Maine and Delaware - to declare their coastal waters "impaired" under the Clean Water Act because of rising acidity. Such a move could clear the way for the states to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.
"Though we believe the science is there, the political will may not be there," said Miyoko Sakashita, a lawyer for the Center for Biodiversity. "At least this will raise awareness among policymakers."
Though cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions might slow or reverse global warming, scientist say it could take thousands of years or longer to reverse the increased acidity of the oceans.
"For all practical purposes this is permanent," Emerson said. "That's not true of temperature. But with ocean acidification the time scales are long."
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
110 Comments so far
Show AllLAquaker -- Great link to a very courageous and powerful lady: Cynthia McKinney, Green 4 Prez.
Grilling Rumsfeld and a 5-death star General about 911, priceless!
Science does one thing very well, it sustains science and increasing expects you to define the world by it use. When science can demonstrate ethical behavior that is not based on self interest there may be hope for the natural world. Science cannot fix it, it can only stop abusing it and it will recover on it's own.
Treefrog, when you ask if science can demonstrate ethical behaviour that is not based on self interest, I think you are asking for the impossible. Ethics, as I understand it, tries to define things like what is right, how the correct way to behave is, how can one live the good life, and so on. Science by definition tries to avoid moral judgements except those which can be shown to be universal. None have yet qualified. You can show "scientifically" that an ethical treatment of each other and the world can lead to one where humans have the most potential, but I think that's an appeal to self interest, and that's the closest I have ever seen to marrying ethics and science. They just don't have much overlap.
Kem, I've had a hard time nailing down oxygen production levels. Certainly over the 4 billion years of earth history, most oxygen was produced by phytoplankton - it wasn't until the earth had a significant oxygen atmosphere and an ozone layer that life could reach the surface, much less land. But what ecological sources I can find say basically what I found on the wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production - namely that land based plants and aquatic based plants fix similar amounts of carbon and therefore release similar amounts of oxygen - about half of the net flux each. I don't know where the fellow on whyplankton.com got his/her 90% figure from.
By the way, this topic is about 2 years old in scientific literature. This is the sort of "side effect" that many ecologists fear the most - the "unintended consequences" that end up being worse than the ones that we do know about.
Craig
PhysicsTeacherGuy
I think I disagree with your paradigm. Scientists are not excluded from ethical behavior because they are scientists, nor are the practices and procedures they use to further scientific interests. These interests intersect with the natural world.
This example about geological acidification is not independent from science. Part of the acidification is directly correlated to scientific practices. The arguement that science only seeks to understand and it stops there reminds me of brother explaining to our mother that he didn't kick his sister, his foot did it.
It seems to be an intrinsically integrated mechanism in humans to always fall back into the search of 'Who's Guilt Is It Anyways?'
Including myself, as it is so obvious that the problem was caused by governments, controlled and operated by Your friendly but unfortunately corrupt and nepotist representatives on both sides of the white. Blue and red.
I need to stay focussed on the more important aspect of 'How can we make the extinction as 'humane' as possible? It should be enough that we have steadily been pushed and manipulated to obediently consume the skin off the earth.
Now that it is time to sat farewell to human mankind, because it is most unlikely and statistically relative, as to what degree Homo Sapiens will survive the XXXL- Cow Fart that as of now the crawls up the intestines of the Arctic. The desire for everything 'Super Sized', from cars to houses, attire, sports and XXXL-Perfomance enhancing steroids and viagra, have made us believe that there is no tommorow.
In 'my' Class Action Lawsuit 'The Pople Of The United States vs. Bush, Greenspan, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.' emphasis is not only given the fact, that the white house to the present day refuses to accept that there is a tomorrow to care about, but engaged in a propaganda to dumb down the citizenry and paved the way of consent to hunt down and kill the 'terrorists' taht were responsible for 9-11. Well, it was never necessary to look afar. A well tuned Orchestra of all Services (Except USGS, I love the USGS web page, those people are cool, specifically when it comes to my Beloved Goddess Pele), Spies, Lobbyists, Representatives, Media Content Providers and religious outlets brainwashed the American Public to a degree, where even in the face of certain 'death through environment', people are unable and unwilling to accept responsibility, but foremost and of all things unable to stop the vehicle. To the contrary, as we, the people who knew it all the way and before can now witness. And we were never able before in history to achieve or develop the desire for self sufficiency. Native tribes are the true owners of this planet, as their stewardship of the land that was given to them, never failed, or at least not to my knowledge. If the Yanomami Indians in the Amazon Rainforest (My Deep felt Condolences) would have invented the Chainsaw, things might have turned worse much quicker.
What is Justice in the face of mankind's failure to think about the consequences of its actions? Everything mankind has come up with so far, is the ability to kill itself many times over. We should shove all those missiles up where they belong. Immediate worldwide disarmament and utilization of disarmed military forces to prepare places like Bangladesh for what is coming. To rebuilt New Orleans and reinstated dignity to its wonderful people. We need to be strong, as we will encounter possible back lashes, acts of sabotage by people like the ones who are in power RIGHT now.
Everybody start thinking now about a way to channel the 500 BILLION GALLONS OF ARCTIC METHANE out through the atmosphere into open space.
Okay PHYSICS TEACHER GUY. YOU are right and the scientists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the ocean's life are wrong.
Funny, when comparing the ammount of green plant life in the oceans, which develop oxygen, to plants which grow on dry land, it would likely be like comparing the amount of grass on an acre of land, (the phytoplankton) to a twelve foot square plot of grass. Actually a good portion of our planet is desert, water and ice caps. Most of Australia for example. Our forrested land areas have been reduced by over 40% in just the past twenty years.
We need oxygen to breathe, to live, and MOST by far of the oxygen we breathe, comes from the ocean life. That is what this article was all about, man made acids in our oceans. We are surely killing the plant and animal life in our oceans.
Will we stop pollution of our oceans and our atmosphere and attempt to reverse the madness? ___ Not if we listen to some who have posted negative comments here, and also allow the powerful people who 'could' begin a massive effort to so so. __ I can't do it, I don't know what to do myself, except pass the word and hope enough will eventually agree. To say that article of two simple enough paragraphs is incorrect is wrong. Prove they are wrong GUY.
Earth is a biosphere, the atmosphere protected by the ozone layer. We are destroying that protective cover also with MAN MADE pollution. Cover your head with a plastic bag and breathe in until you pass out, that is what humanity is faced with if we destroy the phytoplankton.
I don't think it is about finding fault. It is almost everyone's fault. However there is learning and by delayed consequences people do not learn or they learn the wrong thing. That is what science does and in the process leaves people that once understood how to live in the world feeling that they have no power or understanding. People can't change until science tells them what to do and that has been corrupted by self-interest. (no not everyone but it's a very big yardstick)
I read the link you offered PT GUY and understand why you may have a diverse opinion. I do feel the wording of your posts however, created negativism as to the seriousness of the issue.
I choose to accept the info in the link offered by the NASA scientists and the opinions offered by Tundy Agardy Ph.D who states: "The acidity of our oceans is very alarming and it is not surprising that researchers and conservationists are ringing alarm bells."
Carol Turley of the Oscar report, was quoted as saying, "This issue is emerging as one of the most serious problems humanity has ever faced." __Another man, a world renowned, tropical forest ecologist, and the President of the Heinz center, said "When I heard this technical and scientific research information, I considered it to be the most 'chilling' enviromental briefing I have ever had." __ I agree it is also, and I'm just another dufus.
The above treatise on ammonia was an attempt to illumanate a viable path that does not have to involve CO2 and still use 100 years of existing hardware for living, travel and growing food.
30 people showed up in 2005 at a conferance on NH3 as a fuel at a midwest Mennonite college, 60 last year in Denver and 83 this year in San Francisco, mostly PHDs.
One old man did some of the research for the DOD on PV generated NH3 as sustainable fuel in the 1960s, tears welled up as he described finding the DOD reports Unavailable here, he got them from Israel, sourced through the USSR.
My roommate was building image-comparison devices for Hughes in the late 1980s, all newly invented and hush-hush, covered by patents i showed him from the 1950s!
I spent four days volunteering at "Solfest" in Northern California this summer, 10,000 people showed up for Sat. and Sunday, $45 for a ticket. PVs comming out your ears, 10 years of biodiesel, electric cars and "natural" house building...No change from "Off-The-Grid" in Willits in 1989, but now no wind generation offered.
Like who builds their own house?? Their own car??
The real issue of acidic seas is the result of 150 years of "scientific" (Natural philosophy) choices that were optional: greed and profit is "without redeeming social value", the legal definition of obscene.
Porsche' electric car was on the streets in 1900.
Wankel was dead before his engine "worked".
Diesel was dead before his engine "worked" as he designed it, on bio-oil.
Otto(mobile)was dead by 1891, a hundred years before GM made his gasoline engine "work-(100k miles before your first tuneup")in 1991, with half the MPG of a Model T.
We lose 50% of our electricty getting it to our homes!
My grandfather and Great grandfather built a local community power company in the 1920s, and PG&E flooded out their dam and turbines, built poles on the other side of the street and grandfather died in the powerhouse. So much for local sources.
In 1969, without hope for ending the war, i joined and spent my two years as a combat medic. Fine-tuned my pacifism for life.
Why wait? Your "job" won't be here anyway, unless we act now- Screw the "management".
simple and effective, begin the end of autosprawl:
free public transit.
http://www.frepubtra.blogspot.com/
.