Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Deal May Be Too Late To Save Coral Reefs, Scientists Warn
A new global deal on climate change will come too late to save most of the world's coral reefs, according to a US study that suggests major ecological damage to the oceans is now inevitable.
reefs including the Great Barrier Reef off Australia could begin to break up within a few decades, research suggests. (Photograph: Cathie Page) Emissions of
carbon dioxide are making seawater so acidic that reefs including the
Great Barrier Reef off Australia could begin to break up within a few
decades, research by the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University in
California suggests. Even ambitious targets to stabilise greenhouse gas
levels in the atmosphere, as championed by Britain and Europe to stave
off dangerous climate change, still place more than 90% of coral reefs
in jeopardy.
Oceanographers Long Cao and Ken Caldeira looked at how carbon dioxide dissolves in the sea as human emissions increase. About a third of carbon pollution is soaked up in this way, where it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid. Experts say human activity over the last two centuries has produced enough acid to lower the average pH of global ocean surface waters by about 0.1 units.
Such acidification spells problems for coral reefs, which rely on calcium minerals called aragonite to build and maintain their exoskeletons.
"We can't say for sure that [the reefs] will disappear but ... the likelihood they will be able to persist is pretty small," said Caldeira.
The new study was prompted by questions by a US congressional committee on how possible carbon stabilisation targets would affect coral loss.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution to more than 380ppm now. Campaigners and politicians in Europe and the UK say a new global climate deal, which is expected to be agreed next year, must aim to limit CO2 to 450ppm, though scientists say that is unlikely and the world is heading for 550ppm or even 650ppm.
The research suggests that stabilising world carbon levels at 450ppm would still dump so much carbon dioxide in the oceans that only 8% of coral reefs would be surrounded by water with enough aragonite to maintain their structure. Some 7% of the ocean below 60 degrees south will see a shortage of aragonite, while parts of the high latitude ocean could see a pH drop of 0.2 units.
At 550ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, no coral reef would have access to enough of the mineral. Even stabilising CO2 at current levels would still leave some 60% of coral bathed in seawater with low aragonite levels.
The increased amounts of carbon dioxide going into the ocean will also affect other marine life, such as shellfish, that need the calcium mineral to build carbonate shells.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists say the risk posed by carbon pollution to coral and marine life could justify a carbon stabilisation goal "lower than what might be chosen based on climate considerations alone".
The UK's Royal Society is preparing to issue a warning to policymakers on the issue, together with dozens of other international science academies.
Caldeira said the affected reefs would not disappear straight away, but that the change in water chemistry would leave them vulnerable to attack, bleaching or disease.
He said: "We're losing the Arctic ice, it looks like we're going to lose the coral reefs and we could lose much of the rainforest. I find it disconcerting that these ecosystems that have been around on Earth for a long, long time are no longer able to survive."
- Posted in
19 Comments so far
Show Allbligh4
I went diving on the Great Barrier Reef in 1977, and It looked pristine. On a return trip in 1991 large sections were dead. I don't know why this was.
None of this maybe, it's now too late. The ocean has an enormous time lag but it's sopping up the carbon dioxide, 380 ppm now versus 280 ppm a century ago (and 100 million years ago before that).
First, we need to grieve, then get functional.
Second, we need to freeze thousands of species of living coral fertilized eggs with liquid nitrogen, or our heritage is gone.
Third, we need to compartmentalize sections of ocean, creating living refuges for corals.
Fourth, we need to lower the CO2. It's going to be hard work. That's why I put it last.
On October 27th, 2008 1:27 pm PaulK wrote: "First, we need to grieve, then get functional."
Agreed. I'm not a very religious person but on the way to work I prayed that I would not have to need a car and could get to the places I needed to by walking. It might have been the first time a prayer was done to take something away and not to aggrandize one's self. Its more sane though to take action and not shirk one's own responsibility.
And now for your updated runaway Arctic methane release forecast:
As of October 26, the Arctic Ocean is 80% frozen over, not 100%. A late freeze means the ocean got pretty warm this summer. The ice over certain Arctic Ocean continental shelves, such as Siberia and Alaska near the Bering Strait, is still missing this year, as is the ice around European Russian ports. Continental shelf methane clathrate melting will not stop until significant subfreezing temperatures penetrate from the air through the ocean and into the continental shelves below. We may see methane bubbles under the ice, when the ice re-forms.
The land-based permafrost should have pretty much shut off methane production, at least for this year.
We have to focus on the world as we would like it to be. That will be the only thing we will be able to cling on in the upcoming cataclysm. Dependencies will reveal themselves, no conservative has ever pondered about. There are inhabitants on this planet who always knew that the Earth is an organism. With consciousness, awareness and everything else, just like the human 'six-sense-machine'. How much skin does a human need to 'survive'? How much skin have humans stripped off the Earth? Capitalist 'Democracy' is dead. Martial Law and a 'New World Order' will take over from here to extinction. With Karma being the 'only' sense making 'decision finding software', the people who let it come that far will be given their own medicine. The back and force on the internet and in mainstream world is an indicator that human mankind has lost its mind. Like the Zebra, that has the greatest day in its life when it is captured by a Lion, because an explosion of 'Neuro-Peptides' in the Hypothalamus makes the Zebra happier than ever. Maybe Human Consciousness is loosing its mind now, because we have played with fire for too long and our instinct tell us now to stick the head in the sand and kiss ourselves good bye. The most important question for humans should be: 'Where does all this Militarism come from and what is it good for?' Anybody? Where does all the money go to, that is lost in dubious financial disasters?
For the money I realize it is more important to ask where the money goes to, than where it comes from. Looking at Planet Earth and the Texas-Size garbage carpet in the middle of the Northern Pacific Ocean, or looking at any human operation that is not self sufficient in nature, the mental illness of human mankind becomes apparent.
The only solution the comes to my mind is to remove every single mindless person from public office, there are more than enough qualified people on the planet to prevent the worst. How do we know about who is mindless? Look at the results of their policies. Look at the planet. Then You will know, that even some little guy working for Hawai'i County can have a catastrophic influence on the whole, or vice versa. People that can not look further than the edge of their plate, are not only counter productive, they pose a grave danger even for themselves.
Civil Disobedience and the understanding of 'Interdependence' will lead us to higher ground. Not greed and consumerism.
May all Beings be blessed. Specifically the weak and ill minded.
we are but small creatures utterly dependent upon, and literally made of, the very planet above, around and beneath us...this fact trumps all of our thinking on any other subject...really, when all is said and done, there is no other subject...what religion exists, or might exist, to elevate such a fact, and supporting behavior, to godliness?
snydly
When the canaries carried into mines died, nobody ran around saying "save the canaries, save the canaries!!". They knew the mine was about to blow and got the hell out. The coral are our canaries. We need drastic and effective action NOW.
I include a previous post FYI:
You know, sometimes it's instructive to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. Spikes have the characteristic presentation, "eveything is going along allright, until it isn't". This begs the questions-What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not immediately lowered the mean planetary temp? -which is the trigger? temp or CO2? Obviously, temp. -It is also obvious that the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue? -When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? -What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? -Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? There were humans present during the previous cycles, -How and where did they survive the reversals?
-What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? -Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? -Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting watermass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dick around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
If we mend our ways and reduce carbon emissions, the reefs will come back. There are sea-lovers all over the world keeping corals in their salt water tanks so that they can seed the ocean in the future.
Don't despair. But dammit do something about clean green energy. It may be the most important issue in the world now - for life, for peace.
Joe
Only a handful of posts over here, where the real discussion of our future lies.
Do we know the answers to some of snydly's questions, especially about the behavior of sequestered methane in the past? Do the ice core records show any gaps, ie, years when arctic ice was not forming? There seems to have been quite a bit of tectonic activity, especially around the Pacific "Ring of Fire", in the last 50 years, a mere blink in geologic time - Anchorage, Mt St Helens, Popocatepetl, Indian Ocean tsunami - it may be a matter of a few years before some of those plates really move, which could affect the San Andreas faultline and possibly even the massive magma pool beneath Yellowstone in the USA. Survival could get to be a really wild ride.
snydly
Thanks, WC, for the feedback. It's great to hear from the great out-there.
What have you been reading? I've read Under a Green Sky, Velekovsky, Bridge at the edge of the world. Any others?
Cheers.
Hi snydly - I just have an old and unused BS in Geology and have snorkeled around the world which is probably why I take an interest in this subject. It is too bad more in positions of authority don't - the Wall Street meltdown will look like a walk in the park compared to an ice cap meltdown.
I'm afraid my reading has fallen off of late; too much time spent posting here, mayhap. Every once in a while I go back and reread "A Canticle for Liebowitz". Even though it was written in the great post-WW III apocalyptic genre, the apocalypse of climate change makes it continually relevant. I'll have to pick up one of yours - what do you recommend?
Oh, and I forgot Pinatubo...
The corals MAY die? If they go, we go-- that's ecology!
When it comes to it, how will lobbyists and politicians taste roasted over cooling magma?
The corals may be canaries in the coal mine, but we can't get out of the cage either. The entire earth as we know it is being destroyed. Which species will survive?
As far as the few posts here - there is no dispute - only sadness. More posts always go to less weighty issues. Things that seem fixable.
There are few comments on this most important issue because so many have left this site in disgust. There are now far too many articles posted every day that are of little concern to progressives, that it is near impossible to keep up with it. Serious envirtromental issures are now few and far between and then when they are here they're lost in the archives within 36 hours. Common Dremas is not what it used to be.
I have learned so much here about serious issues from reading the comments of others, issues which I was ignorant about. Not anymore, since so many ;very intelligent people have deserted the site.
~Kem Patrick~
See what I mean, BURIED. OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND.
I noticed that too, Kem. Maybe after the election they will focus more on our real concerns, like this. Terrible that addressing climate change has to be considered a "progressive" issue when it is more pressing to the entire planet than any other issue you can name...
By the way, what have you read about the release of sequestered methane in past die-offs? Do the ice cores show anything or is it speculation at this time?
Hi~WC~ I am not certain the ice core samples go back that far, but there is a half inch layer of rock that cicles the globe that is full of methane and mineral elements from a massive asteroid strike during the Permian era. That asteroid strike and a reaulting amount of volcanic erupotions caused global warming to run amock.
You konw, history does indeed teach us, but we should be far more concerned about what is hapening now than what happened 50 million years ago. There is nothing of more imprtance than the thawig of the Arctic and the release of the methane stored there. Nothing is more important and even the editors of Common Dreams ignore it.
You are spot on. It is not just a progressive issue.
I'm certainly no scientist, but I refuse to think that there is no way that we can't reverse all of this. Just cutting consumption isn't going to be nearly enough. It's like telling a person with skin cancer that they need to stay out of the sun without treating the cancer.
Kem buddy I'm still here, just using a different name and not posting as much.
Threads like these are for the experts imo. A layman like me isn't going to have much to add and most people here are laypersons. Although, you don't have to be an expert to at least see that something's wrong with our climate.