Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Oceans Passing Critical CO2 Threshold
UXBRIDGE, Canada - An apparent rapid upswing in ocean acidity in recent years is wiping out coastal species like mussels, a new study has found.
Coral at the Great Barrier Reef. Rising carbon dioxide levels in the world's oceans due to climate change, combined with rising sea temperatures, could accelerate coral bleaching, destroying some reefs before 2050, said an Australian study in January 2002. (Reuters) "We're seeing
dramatic changes," said Timothy Wootton of the Department of Ecology
and Evolution at the University of Chicago, lead author of the study
published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. The study shows increases in ocean acidity that are more than
10 times faster than any prediction.
"It appears that we've crossed a threshold where the ocean can no longer buffer the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere," Wootton told IPS.
For millions of years, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean were in balance, but the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation has put more CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The oceans have absorbed one-third -- about 130 billion tonnes -- of those human emissions and have become 30 percent more acidic as the extra CO2 combines with carbonate ions in seawater, forming carbonic acid.
Each day, the oceans absorb 30 million tonnes of CO2, gradually and inevitably increasing their acidity. There is no controversy about this basic chemistry; however, there is disagreement about the rate at which the oceans are becoming acidic and the potential impact.
The ocean's pH -- the measure of acidity or alkalinity -- has been declining, or becoming more acidic, at a rate of about 0.02 per decade since 1980, said Ulf Riebesell, a biological oceanographer at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.
"We're just starting to realise the far-reaching impacts of ocean acidification," Riebesell told IPS, noting that the term ocean acidification was coined just four years ago.
Wootton and colleagues measured a massive pH decline of 0.4 units in just eight years off the northwest tip of Washington State in the U.S. And that abrupt increase has had a major impact on marine species in the tide pool on Tatoosh Island where the study was conducted.
"Large shell species like mussels and goose barnacles were dying at a faster rate and being replaced by other species," he said.
Increased seawater acidity means there is less calcium carbonate in the water for corals and shell-forming species like mussels and phytoplankton to grow or maintain their skeletons. The once verdant mussel beds in the study area were being replaced by algae, Wootton said.
"We are not exactly certain why the mussels declined but preliminary evidence has shown some thinning of shells on snails in the area," he told IPS.
Wootton also cautions that the results are just from one area, but said there have been other regions where large increases in the rate of ocean acidity have been measured along the entire west coast of North America. However, none have been as large or consistent as those at Tatoosh Island.
"We measured even greater increases in acidity this summer," he said. "I'm really getting worried now."
Riebesell and other ocean acidification experts contacted by IPS say atmospheric CO2 could not be responsible for the large increase Wootton measured. Either their methodology is flawed or there is some local anomaly that is skewing the results, they said.
"If the pH change is real...a likely explanation would be that also other factors related to seawater pH have changed over the eight-year period in the tidal pool," said Riebesell.
Wootton told IPS they looked for other causes of both the declines in mussels and other species and the high acidity levels. They could find no other explanation.
Ocean acidification is a very new field of science and the best ways to do research are still being investigated. In fact, the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences was host to an international workshop on that very topic last week, said Riebesell. A draft outline of a guide for Best Practices in Ocean Acidification Research and Data Reporting will be forthcoming.
This dispute aside, marine scientists are very worried about ocean acidification and the potential to decimate corals and a large number other species. Some have suggested that little will be left in the oceans except bacteria, jellyfish and algae without major reductions in emissions of fossil fuels and an end to deforestation.
"CO2 is making the oceans very sick," said Jackie Savitz, senior campaign director for Oceana's Pollution Campaigns. Oceana is an international ocean conservation group.
"There is a strong likelihood of a massive extinction of corals by mid-century," Savitz said in an interview.
To prevent this, atmospheric CO2 concentrations need to return to 350 parts per million, the pre-industrial level, she said. Currently CO2 is 385 ppm and growing at 2 to 3 ppm annually. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, European Union and others have called for a climate stabilisation of 450 ppm to ward off the worst affects of climate change.
"Four hundred and fifty ppm is not going to save corals," she said, because the acidification of the ocean would kill and weaken corals and other species that make up the reef ecosystems. "We need to stop using fossil fuels period. Carbon that's in the ground now should stay there."
Some leading climates scientists agree.
In study published last week, 10 prominent scientists said that the level of globe-warming carbon dioxide in the air has probably already reached a point where world climate will change disastrously unless the level can be reduced to 350 ppm. The study is a departure from recent estimates that truly dangerous levels would be reached only later in this century.
Climate feedbacks have already begun, particularly at the poles, accelerating the warming of the planet, said lead author James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of Columbia University's Earth Institute.
Ocean acidification is scary, acknowledges Riebesell. Acidification cannot be fixed quickly. It might take a thousand years for the oceans to regain their buffering capacity to prevent continuing acidification. Many species will not be able to adapt and there will be no place to hide, he said.
"The oceans will be very different in 20 years," he warned.
- Posted in



17 Comments so far
Show AllThis is only one piece in a larger planetary jigsaw puzzle.
One image of countless others, that will equally only be
'discovered' by humans, 'recently'.
"The study is a departure from recent estimates that truly
dangerous levels would be reached only later in this century"
.
What does 'truly dangerous' mean, please? Is it like You sit
on the front lawn of Your house, doing well, like all other
human beings on the planet and then, then something
becomes 'truly dangerous'. Like Borg Space Ships preparing
to take over. Another possibility would be a global 'Methane Fart'
on fire. When all the methane that thaws up right now
reaches a critical concentration... Well we won't be there
to tell.
'..only later in this century.' That's a relief. It is not happening
to us. It will happen to our children and grandchildren.
In the light of these news, the performances of the government,
ruled by whoever, are a shame. They are Blasphemy.
No action is taken to prevent our children from sitting in a
'truly dangerous world'.
I doubt that You can sit out on the front lawn in that one.
Helena-Sophia Watson
Female Mind Over Matter
Yet another Propaganda piece for a global cap and trade system administered through the UN destroying all sovereignty.
Humans need to clean up our act but more Gov't is not the answer.
Governments, as the only possible representatives of entire societies, are not just the answer, they are the only answer.
It's not a problem, it's a business opportunity.
Think of all the money to be made selling oxygen to the masses.
And security for the mega-rich - that business will go right through the roof when the food & water riots start.
And tourism - think how much money people will spend to see the few remaining species once the extinctions accelerate to the point where people notice.
It's a wonderful future ahead, and business will lead the way.
The earth lander showed no signs of life but there were indications that the planet may have had water on the surface at one time.
http://www.repoweramerica.org/page/s/epa
Repower America.org has a letter writing campaign for public comment to the EPA -
3 days left for responses to EPA call for public comment on CO2 emissions “endanger the public health and welfare”
Repower America.org has a letter writing campaign for public comment to the EPA
Wanna see how bad it could get? Look at Venus. It has a massive carbon dioxide atmosphere, gone wild. It is a virtual twin of Earth, in terms of basic constituents, and yet it has a surface temperature of almost 900 degrees F. at about 100 times the atmospheric pressure on Earth, and, just to make it all perfect, it rains hydro-sulfuric acid! It makes a blast furnace look like a prime picnic spot.
Venus is about as extreme an example of global warming/greenhouse effect as one might find anywhere. Clearly, having had water billions of years ago, something significant started Venus down the road to hell...which is what it is now, a vision of hell. It's current surface temperature is the hottest of all the planets, including Mercury, which is much closer to the sun. Venus's position relative to the Sun and Earth can't fully explain this phenomenon. But there it is, a planet with a 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and temperatures beyond imagination.
Not saying that exact thing could happen to Earth, but it is fairly clear that if one advances past the tipping point of the atmospheric equilibrium we've had here for so long, one is looking at some extremely dangerous possible results. Sorry, but there's no all knowing white guy with a white beard up in the clouds to save us all if the planet goes the way of Venus...and if it does, we'll only have ourselves to blame. This planet is almost literally a paradise...or at least once was until rapacious industrialist took it as their own personal toxic waste dump...it would be nice if we could manage to not destroy it, dontcha think?
All in the name of the almighty dollar, the death of mankind is inevitable.Think of a simple fishbowl with one, then two, then three fish etc. etc. and eventually the bowl will become so polluted that the fish die, well everyone we are now going down that path. Not even all the money on the planet can save a soul now. Enjoy it while you can
Actually, the Oceans will be very empty in twenty years. If.
I believe in 'Miracles'.
I believe that mankind as a whole gets the picture right now.
With immediate total global disarmament and the funds being
diverted into change towards renewable energy sources,
mankind does have a chance. Quantum Physics is not just an
invention of some mad scientists. All this here is energy in various
states and conditions. Hence it is subject to change without
further notice. Not one more moment should be wasted on the
blame game, or on whining and complaining. It is what it is
and we know how it can be helped.
Mother Earth has already initiated a 'Fever' to cleanse her
surface. A change of mind on behalf of the collective human
ego will get us out of this.
Helena-Sophia Watson Female Mind Over Matter
When the economic crunch really, I mean *REALLY* hits, we won't have to worry about acidification of the oceans.
We will be too busy worrying about where our next meal is coming from, and whether we will be able to build a smaller home in time for the next winter.
Acidification of the oceans due to CO2 from human sources will begin to decrease as the polluting industries shut down, starved of the credit needed to run and power them. Human industrial activities will curtail themselves as we return to a more agrarian/localvore way of living.
That and the long overdue human population dieback, due to the collapse of 'modern' industrial society and the individuals it supports.
I used to find great argument with the idea of Zero Population Growth.
These days I can find no real argument aginst it.
Walk in peace.
This must be activists' fallback panic since the Earth steadfastly refuses to enter meltdown mode:
So, what's wrong with this picture? Briefly:
coastal and shallow water denizens experience wide ranges of alkalinity and salinity because they are subjected to rainfall and land runoff, yet they survive alkalinity much lower (i.e., acidification) than the relatively trivial change due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
marine critters survive quite happily despite there being ocean outgassing zones (where CO2 is transferred from ocean to atmosphere, implying saturation) so changes in the size of these zones (which have existed far longer than has industrialization) implies no disaster
previous periods in Earth's history have demonstrated much higher temperatures (e.g. the Cretaceous, with globally averaged temperatures 6-14 °C higher than at present), higher carbon dioxide levels (4-6 times present levels) and simultaneously supporting vast numbers of chalk producing critters (think deposition of the White Cliffs of Dover)
then there's current coccolithophores, mollusks, corals and other calcium carbonate shell formers evolved in the Ordovician, when carbon dioxide levels were an order of magnitude greater than those of today
Of course its easier to ignore this than if someone was to pay me buckets of money to tool around on my own private 'research' reef I might be tempted to feign concern about these critters too but there is no plausible biological reason to do so other than my free lunch being generated by the global warming scare mongers living off the public trough.
We can talk like this article until the cows come home and others start debating this and that.
We call it NATO .... No action talk only.
To move forward, whether global warming is real or not the CO2 is increasing... and that is bad.
To prevent or slow down such, we need the next best thing. Get as many trees to grow or be left uncut as much as we can.
To this end, we have moved to mobilise the entire student population of the world from the most rural to the urban schools to go less paper by going paperless in their homework.
The initiatives actually will benefit the students and schools without much effort or cost and keep millions of trees to soak up the extra CO2.
OUr effort can be see at www.paperlesshomework.com
We aim to close the most elusive efforts of all in the world... closing the digital divides for a greener world.
Join us anyone? Start by getting your Ministry of Education to join our global program to go paperless to better their education and environment for free.
Regards to all
Alan Foo
www.paperleeshomework.com
I believe the author was mistaken about pre-industrial co2 levels. It was 280ppm. We're now at 380+. James Hansen has said that 350 is the maximum tolerable level for the planet's ecosystems to remain intact.
I see the solution as very simple. Pre-industrial co2 levels can only be reached by pre-industrial population numbers. Less than 1 billion human beings. I don't see that happening except by violence and/or disease.
Everyone seems to think we can just switch over to non-polluting non-carbon energy and the ever-growing population just keeps going on about it's business. The energy required to melt metal to build cars alone is enormous. Solar cells won't do it. Wind turbines won't do it. Only nuclear has a chance. But just take a look at Hanford Nuclear to see what the future holds with that option.
We are driven by our genes to reproduce. Our arrogance will keep us thinking we're better than the rest of the world's species. But we're not. We are dependent upon all of them for life, just as they are dependent upon us.
If we are truly intelligent beings we'll see that we must overcome millions of years of evolutionary survival and go against our genetic urges to curb our own species growth because our future survival depends upon not reproducing. And getting back to living with nature.
On one side we have an acute awareness of the problems the world faces, even if there is debate about the details, and on the other hand we have motor companies, bankers and consumers lobbying for more cash, and governments talking the talk of economic expansion and steady as she goes - into the night.
We are running out of sufficient energy and water, yet we are in denial. I fear we will just blunder on until, as has been said, we will be a polarised society of dog-eat-dog rich landowners and their hangers-on protected by well paid mercenaries, surrounded by the violent mass of the desperate . The majority of people will destroy each other in their futile hunt for sustenance.
snydly
Sometimes it's helpful 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. This begs the questions---What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not drastically lowered the mean planetary temp? ---What is the trigger? temp, CO2, other? Obviously, 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 (tipping point)?---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 water mass 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 dally 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!
Additionally:
Subjectively, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with sea ice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-halyene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and technologically enabled civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-Atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case, the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently planetary methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous ice age cycle/reversals evidently have occurred soon enough to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as Greenland, relieved of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. National Geog had an article on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on Greenland---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of that ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists seems called for.
So…amazing deductions, pseudo-science in prose, or story board for “The Day After The Day After Tomorrow”?
snydly
There is something in this climate chg situation that has black swan written all over it, that some of the major players have yet to apply themselves to. There are good reasons to tread lightly on these conjectures, of course, but the consequences of missing the chance to prepare for what MAY transpire demand a hard look, heh?
From what I've heard and have no reason to doubt are that:
*the glaciers of past cycles were thousands of feet thick---2000'?
*humans and a large % of animals lived through the cycles, but there is evidence of mass extinctions (ref: Under a Green Sky, the book) along the way.
*it would take a lot of energy to move water to vapor and on to the poles.
*that's a lot of mass, and the earth is more or less a fluid ball of magma with a crust that has experienced movement before, as evidenced by the paleo-magnetic record of the mid-Atlantic ridge.
*the ice core data, which, apparently, shows gradual accumulation of snow/ice mass.
*the ice core data, again, which show the defeat and reversal of CO2/Temp Dev as a spike.
The missing link is the magnetic striping record of the mid-Atlantic ridge. The Navy might have that, or the Russkies.
The point of changing "business-as-usual" is to keep this change within survivable limits. As everyone knows, we have driven CO2 well beyond natural limits, and methane is coming into play.
Can a change in mass ice/water distribution initiate global geo-tectonic phenomena?
Seems likely, but I haven't run across any geo-dynamicists, lately.
I'll stop here, for now. Hope you're still out there.
(here's a little gem for you...find a copy of "Black Elk Speaks" by Niehart(?), and check out what the Chief calls North in his native rituals.)
Cheers.
yes, climate change is responsible.
http://geocities.com/climatechange777