Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiArctic Seas Turn to Acid, Putting Vital Food Chain at Risk
With the world's oceans absorbing six million tonnes of carbon a day, a leading oceanographer warns of eco disaster
Carbon-dioxide emissions are turning the waters of the Arctic Ocean into acid at an unprecedented rate, scientists have discovered. Research carried out in the archipelago of Svalbard has shown in many regions around the north pole seawater is likely to reach corrosive levels within 10 years. The water will then start to dissolve the shells of mussels and other shellfish and cause major disruption to the food chain. By the end of the century, the entire Arctic Ocean will be corrosively acidic.
![[(Juniors Bildarchiv/Alamy)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/arcticseas.jpg "arcticseas.jpg")
"This is extremely worrying," Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso, of France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, told an international oceanography conference last week. "We knew that the seas were getting more acidic and this would disrupt the ability of shellfish – like mussels – to grow their shells. But now we realise the situation is much worse. The water will become so acidic it will actually dissolve the shells of living shellfish."
Just as an acid descaler breaks apart limescale inside a kettle, so the shells that protect molluscs and other creatures will be dissolved. "This will affect the whole food chain, including the North Atlantic salmon, which feeds on molluscs," said Gattuso, speaking at a European commission conference, Oceans of Tomorrow, in Barcelona last week. The oceanographer told delegates that the problem of ocean acidification was worse in high latitudes, in the Arctic and around Antarctica, than it was nearer the equator.
"More carbon dioxide can dissolve in cold water than warm," he said. "Hence the problem of acidification is worse in the Arctic than in the tropics, though we have only recently got round to studying the problem in detail."
About a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by factories, power stations and cars now ends up being absorbed by the oceans. That represents more than six million tonnes of carbon a day.
This carbon dioxide dissolves and is turned into carbonic acid, causing the oceans to become more acidic. "We knew the Arctic would be particularly badly affected when we started our studies but I did not anticipate the extent of the problem," said Gattuso.
His research suggests that 10% of the Arctic Ocean will be corrosively acidic by 2018; 50% by 2050; and 100% ocean by 2100. "Over the whole planet, there will be a threefold increase in the average acidity of the oceans, which is unprecedented during the past 20 million years. That level of acidification will cause immense damage to the ecosystem and the food chain, particularly in the Arctic," he added.
The tiny mollusc Limacina helicina, which is found in Arctic waters, will be particularly vulnerable, he said. The little shellfish is eaten by baleen whales, salmon, herring and various seabirds. Its disappearance would therefore have a major impact on the entire marine food chain. The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa would also be extremely vulnerable to rising acidity. Reefs in high latitudes are constructed by only one or two types of coral – unlike tropical coral reefs which are built by a large variety of species. The loss of Lophelia pertusa would therefore devastate reefs off Norway and the coast of Scotland, removing underwater shelters that are exploited by dozens of species of fish and other creatures.
"Scientists have proposed all sorts of geo-engineering solutions to global warming," said Gattuso. "For instance, they have proposed spraying the upper atmosphere with aerosol particles that would reduce sunlight reaching the Earth, mitigating the warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide.
"But these ideas miss the point. They will still allow carbon dioxide emissions to continue to increase – and thus the oceans to become more and more acidic. There is only one way to stop the devastation the oceans are now facing and that is to limit carbon-dioxide emissions as a matter of urgency."
This was backed by other speakers at the conference. Daniel Conley, of Lund University, Sweden, said that increasing acidity levels, sea-level rises and temperature changes now threatened to bring about irreversible loss of biodiversity in the sea. Christoph Heinze, of Bergen University, Norway, said his studies, part of the EU CarboOcean project, had found that carbon from the atmosphere was being transported into the oceans' deeper waters far more rapidly than expected and was already having a corrosive effect on life forms there.
The oceans' vulnerability to climate change and rising carbon-dioxide levels has also been a key factor in the launching of the EU's Tara Ocean project at Barcelona. The expedition, on the sailing ship Tara, will take three years to circumnavigate the globe, culminating in a voyage through the icy Northwest Passage in Canada, and will make continual and detailed samplings of seawater to study its life forms.
A litre of seawater contains between 1bn and 10bn single-celled organisms called prokaryotes, between 10bn and 100bn viruses and a vast number of more complex, microscopic creatures known as zooplankton, said Chris Bowler, a marine biologist on Tara.
"People think they are just swimming in water when they go for a dip in the sea," he said. "In fact, they are bathing in a plankton soup."
That plankton soup is of crucial importance to the planet, he added. "As much carbon dioxide is absorbed by plankton as is absorbed by tropical rainforests. Its health is therefore of crucial importance to us all."
However, only 1% of the life forms found in the sea have been properly identified and studied, said Bowler. "The aim of the Tara project is to correct some of that ignorance and identify many more of these organisms while we still have the chance. Issues like ocean acidification, rising sea levels and global warming will not be concerns at the back of our minds. They will be a key focus for the work that we do while we are on our expedition."
The toll by 2100
■ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast in 2007 that sea levels would rise by 20cm to 60cm by 2100 thanks to global warming caused by man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. This is now thought to be an underestimate, however, with most scientific bodies warning that sea levels could rise by a metre or even higher. Major inundations of vulnerable regions such as Bangladesh would ensue.
■ The planet will be hotter by 3C by 2100, most scientists now expect, though rises of 4.5C to 5C could be experienced. Deserts will spread and heatwaves will become more prevalent. Ice-caps will melt and cyclones are also likely to be triggered.
■ Weather patterns across the globe will become more unstable, numbers of devastating storms will increase dramatically while snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains.
62 Comments so far
Show AllI thought at least people in my field (civil engineering) thought AGW was serious if for no other reason that addressing it (public transit, wind turbines, hydropower, nuclear) employs a lot of civil engineers. But right now, it looks like I'm wrong:
http://tinyurl.com/yc3khed
And these are supposed to be educated people.
The European that said US attitudes toward AGW were "paleolithic" or some such word wasn't kidding.
And you gotta love how 3 out of the 4 possible choices are anti-AGW.
Yeah, that too.
So, effectively, among civil engineers (most with mmasters degrees or higher), it's running 3 denialists to every member of the AGW reality community.
Which just goes to show that many professionals outside the field of climate are meta-ignorant on the subject.
Let us be practical. If we're going to find a solution to the quandary of carbon dioxide emissions, it will in all likelihood come in the form of a new technology from the industrialized countries that themselves have the highest CO2 emissions. There has been some very encouraging work done by Professor Klaus Lackner at Columbia University on carbon capture devices: these machines basically suck up atmosphere and, using what he calls "ultramafic rocks," separate the carbon from the air and sequester it as a solid mass, that can then be stored underground. If we could put a million of these on stable ridges near the arctic circle, they would absorb 10 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year. Read the original report yourself: Fraser Goff and Klaus S. Lackner, “Carbon Dioxide Sequestering Using Ultramafic Rocks.” Environmental Geoscience, 5, No. 3, 1998, pp. 89-101. This is just one example of a promising new technology--perhaps not so new anymore: although Lackner came up with the idea in 1998, it was not successfully demonstrated until 2004, see http://www.grtaircapture.com/. If the United States and the rest of the G8 contributed more money to research and development of these kinds of technologies, instead of paying for our militarization of the planet, I am confident we would find a solution to this problem in under five years. Let us all turn our minds to this dilemma, and see what novel solutions occur to us.
Trees might work, too.
Exactly. Technology masks the problem, while nature solves it. In a world filled again with CO2-eating trees, we automatically get closer to homeostasis because there's room for fewer CO2-generating humans.
Killing the trees to make room for more humans, and then creating technology to hold at arm's length (for awhile) one piece of the resultant problem is what landed us in the gyppo in the first place. We need to see technology as a finger in the dike, not a solution.
Apocalypse Now! The sooner the blight on this planet called humanity goes while taking with it the fewest number of other species possible the better.
The kind of thinking that "humans are a blight on this planet" is ecology’s fringe equivalent of Christian and Islamic fundamentalist conceptions of "the end times," and we should avoid it at all costs. These are the sorts of people that give ecological reform a bad name. Their way of thinking produces no solutions to our problems and will lead us to the very sort of apocalypse that they purport to fear, as some sort of judgment for humanity's sins.
I am not afraid.
The only sins are against ourselves. It is possible to sin against a stone. It's not a judgment against us, only karma. I don't believe in cause and effect. Every thing or event has thousands of causes beginning with Lucy and the birth of the Sun.
Oct 24 is a special day around the globe: We will celebrate the number 350
It is 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide that we want to achieve by the year 2050. We have currently about 387 and we have to get DOWN. It all stated with the industrial age and we had 280 or so parts per million before the industrial age started this current crisis.
Tehre will be demonstrations all over the globe on Oct 24. The idea is to send photos of all the events to the website www.350.org and they will publish the photos.
he idea is to stimulate discussion at the Copenhagen climate change conference 6 weeks after Oct 24.
Please make an event-- go to www.350.org
Thanks guys for suggesting public transportation, vegetarian living, family planning and lets go out and really observe the wonderful nature that we have right now!
Get those politicians to move on public transport and wind and solar energy - yes even nuclear.
It is time for some major geo-engineering projects. They probably wont work and they will likely create even bigger problems, but it is quite obvious that the rich people in the world will not give up their ipods and their humvees and their sushi, and their flights to las vegas, so only very drastic measures will have any chance of suceess.
I dare all who are physically capable.
Get a bicycle. (You may be able to just repair one already available.)
Use it as a major means of getting to places you need to go.
Its a start. But perhaps too humble and simple for many. In addition, you could eliminate all or most meat you eat.
Your excuses may be exemplary of the problems of us all.
I agree with you. Utility cycling and a vegetarian diet are good personal steps to take for many reasons, even though they have only a negligible impact on the overall problem compared to the impact of organising.
I rode a bike to everywhere I needed to go, school, work, stores, etc. for years. That stopped when I lived on campus and my bike got stolen, and I haven't gotten a new one yet...I need a very strong (and expensive) one to support my weight. But the buses go everywhere I want to go here in DC, and the city is very walkable too. And I have started using vegetarian substitutes for meat in some of my dishes, replacing chicken in my stir fries, salads, and nachos/fajitas/burritos. If you do it right, you can't even tell a difference, it's great.
Now this article is the one that should be in BOLD letters! We are going to be in deep, deep trouble much, much sooner than I thought.
There's no hope for it. We can't compete with polluting corporations and animal agribusiness and the auto industry. Change will only happen when we are FORCED, out of sheer desperation, to do so. By then, it will be way too late, of course.
All those who want to take action go to: http://freepublictransit.org
FALLACY OF CLIMATE NON COMPLIANCE
Our Nation's non compliance with the rest of the developed nations concerning global warming mitigation underscores the dangerous control that special interests have exercised over the Bush administration’s policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.
By all indicators, global warming will self perpetuate as the melting ice sheets absorb rather than reflect heat, as the melting permafrost releases more CO2 & methane, and the list goes on. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.
Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen if we allow the same special interests to force the new administration away from the desperately needed environmental reforms and reversal of their war against our planet.
So many of those arguing for the status quo, claiming that the 'proof wasn't in whether GW was actually harmful' had apparently never heard that what you don't know can actually hurt you (you just don't know that it can). Well, we're beginning to get an idea.
Why is it always full-steam ahead when its for business, but never when its for the environment?
Just like the headline says from the fake edition of the New York Post recently put out by the Yes Men - "We're Screwed!"
"Believing in something strongly enough to fight for it does not guarantee success. But it changes the odds."
Yes but for an individual in this society it probably changes the odds from 0% to .001%. Still, I commend you for your efforts. Don Quixote is one of my heroes.
I live in a small rural town and identify also with Kierkegaard who called himself a genius in a market town.
"Still, I commend you for your efforts. Don Quixote is one of my heroes."
--------------------------------------
You could help.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is regulated by the myriad microscopic oceanic organisms; the current percentage of oxygen is just one very important element that they regulate. The massive experiment with the planet's ecosystem called the Industrial Revolution is approaching its climax, and the end-game doesn't bode well for complex life forms like hominids, or bivalves. An important point made in the article is the geoengineering "solutions" proposed will NOT solve the acidification of the oceans uppon which all life depends. It's imperative that the already existing geoengineering experiment assaulting that planet--the industrial revolution--end ASAP. We can be assured the Capitalists will NOT stop their experiment, so they will need to be destroyed along with their machines--that is the bottom line. We have reached the last--terminal--phase of the Class War.
Similar point made in "The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet" by John Bellamy Foster.
I believe it was in 2007 that the Southern Ocean (the one around Antarctica) stopped accepting new carbon. It maxed out. I believe it's also the case that the last time the oceans were acidifying so fast was followed by a 500K-year period where nothing important could live in any of the oceans.
I'll ask my usual questions here too: how much time are YOU PERSONALLY willing to divert from your everyday life and dedicate to organising against the climate disaster? Anything at all?
Do you even truly, no-shit believe that high-order life on Earth is in peril?
If you do believe, truly believe, that we're heading for extinction, yet you are unwilling to give up any part of your life to work on solving the problem, how do you reconcile your belief with your unwillingness to act on it?
I pretty much put off until after the elections last year all the coursework in my final semester of college to run the Power Vote campaign on my campus and get over 600 students to sign pledges to keep clean energy in mind when they voted, then participated in the massive 12,000 attendee Powershift '09 event here in DC at the end of February, and just a couple weeks ago I joined the new DC chapter of Rainforest Action Network and am helping them to plan direct action campaigns targeting the EPA on the issue of mountaintop removal coal mining. Oh, and I spend a good part of my down time at work and afterward on here to learn more about this and many other issues.
But I am still working on limiting my consumption of electricity a bit further, I still use the TV too much.
Your putting your coursework on hold to organise for the election is exactly the kind of commitment I'm asking about, where the situation is perceived as so urgent that everything "normal" must be shoved aside.
The problem is that you seem to be one of the few people even here who's sufficiently connected to reality to be able to feel anything like that sense of urgency. Most others apparently don't really believe that the problem exists. I suppose it must be like a story on tv for them or something. They moan about it, but, as far as I can tell, they seem not to be aware that it's real.
The combination of the corporatocracy and the climate disaster is rapidly killing us all, and any effective response will require not just a few months' commitment like your one, but a "for the duration" commitment, like WW2 enlistments were.
Lovelock uses as a metaphor a (relatively) small disaster that happened some years back at Manchester airport in England. A big airliner caught fire, but the crew misunderstood the size of the problem and told people to remain calm and stay in their seats. Some passengers looked at the flames, said "bugger THAT!", scrambled over their seatmates, and ran for their lives. The rest obediently sat there til it was too late, and burned to death.
Just seeing what's going on here at CD --lazy, posturing discussions with no meaningful connection to reality, yet written by what I have to think are some of the brighter people in the world-- tells me that the most effective thing any of us can do who *do* have a connection to reality is to get people to "look at the flames".
If we can get a critical mass of people to see what's really going on, so that they stop thinking of it as a goddamn drama on tv, then small pieces of the problem like mountaintop removal will be solved "automagically" by the flood of change. And if we can't get people to see what's really going on, then nothing else we do will matter.
I'm gonna remember this planet...
Mother Nature is coming, and BOY is She pissed!!!
The future was plastic,
Now it's Ice Cream.
The effect of carbonic acid accumulation in the oceans goes well beyond the annihilation of plankton and the animals that rely on it to survive. Life as we know it in the oceans can disappear, there is no doubt, yet life there will continue nonetheless. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of what remain, may likely be methane producing bacteria, that could explode onto the scene, in response to the huge amounts of dead and decaying organic material left in the wake of this disaster. Not only will the planet lose an important oxygen resource, with the elimination of its production by plankton, but it may also trigger the poisoning of the atmosphere, with lethal quantities of methane gas. We are probably far from the skies being smeared green, as atmospheric water vapor reacts to this invisible gas, but let us at least be clear as to the severity of the consequences that CO2 pollution represents and the urgency of action needed.
Sea level rise - and even a 7C temperature increase may be the least of the effects. Think of runaway methane hydrate releases, a dead anoxic sea releasing H2S, which oxidizes atmospheric O2 drastically reducing it while and eliminating the ozone layer to the point that terrestrial life is only possible for well-adapted life forms at sea level. More than 95 percent of all species dies off - much of it in the span of only a century. This happened at the close of the Permian era 251 my ago.
When will a respected group of geoscientists announce that we face an increasing probability of a virtually uninhabitable planet - including ourselves?
These scientists seem to be directing the conservatism in entirely the wrong direction. The advice the policymakers need is of the less certain but catastrophic scenarios - not the milder ones one can be "sure" of happening! Why don't they understand this!?
Engineers design high hazard structures like dams for unlikely but disastrous scenarios - no one asks them to "prove" near-biblical events like probable maximum storms or maximum credible earthquakes will happen over the life of a dam. Prudence dictates that they get designed for such events anyway. Yet, with AGW, the powerful capitalists and their political allies insist of "proof" of even the conservative "sure" scenarios. And make no mistake about it, capitalist economics driving out headlong charge to extinction.
It's time to update the saying "Socialism or Barbarism!" The new cry should be "Socialism or Extinction!"
pjd412 - Wouldn't hydrogen sulfide plus oxygen not only reduce free oxygen levels in the atmosphere, but also create sulfuric acid, which would drop down in the form of rain and further acidify the ocean? I don't understand all the connections, but it seems it would react to create acid rain as it did with the midwest smokestacks before the scrubbers were installed. What do you think?
Joe
Yes, we would have a very acidic planet, much like the one we had 3 billion years ago. The bactria that existed then still does today, and will continue tomorrow; so, life will not totally perish--bacteria are far too adaptable.
Perhaps the best example of what is likely to come is what Lynn Margulis in "Microcosmos" called the "Oxygen Holocaust," the ninth chapter of that book, except that the compound this time will be CO2, which in turn will cause other chemical "eruptions." This whole aspect of changing the oceanic and atmopheric chemistry is why Dr Lovelock feels there is little to be done. The findings this article present will only serve to verify his prognosis.
I highly reccommend Dr Margulis's book and her many others. Each one is an education. To have any idea of how the Climate Crisis might unfold, one must have the knowledge of how we got to now from a Gaian perspective.
"Think of runaway methane hydrate releases, a dead anoxic sea releasing H2S, which oxidizes atmospheric O2 drastically reducing it while and eliminating the ozone layer to the point that terrestrial life is only possible for well-adapted life forms at sea level."
That is one catastrophic scenario I have not heard anywhere either. Are there any scientists involved in pushing the AGW issue that have talked about it?
Unfortunately not.
But most geologists are familiar with the consensus on the Permian-Triassic mass extinction and the way human CO2 emissions are disrupting the atmospheric and oceanic makeup in a comparable way to once-in hundreds-million year supervolcanic event that is believed to have triggered the P-Tr mass extinction.
The scientists involved in the IPCC and other organizations are concerned about not sounding "alarmist" - so they are only willing to talk about predictions they have a high degree of confidence in - not the less certain but more catastrophic scenarios - which is the opposite of how engineers or the engineers involved in government regulation (like me) approach a problem when deciding on a course of action - i.e. the design of something that could kill people if it fails.
If the dam analogy isn't clear just think of airbags in cars. Car manufacturers are required to install rather sophisticated airbag systems in cars - yet only in a tiny fraction of cars will the airbags ever get used - but we, as a society have decided that it is worth it to save, perhaps, a couple thousand lives out of a population of hundreds of millions. So, what precautions are worth considering to prevent our possible extinction along with most other life forms? I think quite a bit! But this isn't how policymakers are approaching the problem.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2008/09/warm-oceans-anoxia-extinction.html
Anoxic Oceans and Bacteria
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01-susp-nf.html
The deep ocean as well as shallow marine habitats appear to have had low oxygen levels at the end of the Permian. This condition, called anoxia, could have been the linchpin in the extinction tale. For most marine life, the anoxia would have meant suffocation. But other life—particularly anaerobic bacteria that give off hydrogen sulfide—would have thrived. The hydrogen sulfide would have spread through the oceans, killing more species, and as it slowly fizzed out into the atmosphere, it would have poisoned life on land as well. Hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere then would have damaged the ozone layer, opening paths for deadly ultraviolet radiation to reach the remaining life on Earth.
I know a little bit about anoxia, that's the condition in the dead zones by the Mississippi Delta have, right? And I believe red tides produce them too. I can't imagine there being to little oxygen left that we literally asphyxiate in the open air, but hey, who could imagine psychotic Michelle Bachmann's son would join Teach For America (Americorps)?
Until you change the way money works, you change nothing.
This makes me glad I never really ate anything ocean-based...my diet won't be directly impacted by the oceans becoming, basically, lifeless. The same won't be true for billions around the world though.
What was it Bush said once? "We will never apologize for the American way of life." And God forbid we try to change it!
Zmann: "I never really ate anything ocean-based...my diet won't be directly impacted"
Who gives a sh.. about your diet. Global climate change and ocean acidification is not about you! Perhaps if you can see over your massive ego you will discover that there is a bigger problem out there that affects every living thing on this planet.
Sheeesh, It is no bloody wonder that it is difficult to solve problems when people's perspectives are as narrow as this!
Seriously man, I think global warming is the single most important problem affecting all of us. I was just pointing out that I am glad I don't consume anything ocean-based...except possibly my toothpaste. And a lot of my diet is coming from local and organic/sustainable farms, orchards, and pastures.
After your post, I sure hope you don't rely much on the forces of capitalism and industry that are rendering our planet unfit to live on.
Zmann: I read the rest of your stuff and must say I miss judged your statement. I apologise!
My excuse is that in my rush I just read that sentance/para, by itself and it came across to me like "I'm alright for number one, screw the millions".
I will try to curtail my jumping to the wrong conclusions and snap judgements:)
But anyway, my wife and I live on the land and grow our own, fruit and veggies for our B&B, and sell shitake, we are trying to build into our guest facility (4 rooms) and property (about 1 acre) a large degree of water and energy self sufficiency for the future, including solar thermal water heating, and photovoltaic for recharging the electric car for runabout, which will soon mostly replace the 2.8 L diesel Nissan Patrol, which now runs mostly on recycled cooking oil (60% mix), collected from here and a couple of shops and restaurants locally. But, I still need this bigger 4X4 to help me hall things on the land.
But yes, I still depend on my guests who stay and pay, with their filthy lucre earned as bankers, lawyers, dentists or whatever, in the complex world but I do my best to show them the benefits of natural harmony and the prospect of a rich and rewarding simple life. So I do what I can to help those who I can for the future by example. Sorry again.
It's all good, I've wrongly jumped on people before.
And that's great, I really wish I had the time, energy, and resources to grow my own food like that. Good luck with upgrading your property, that's a wonderful and worthwhile venture. Maybe they will be inspired by your example...I strive to live my life the way I preach it as well.
I think zmann is engaging in Deep Irony, as such a rationalization will be made by the likes of Senator Inhofe and his allies.
I think Inhofe will go beyond that, and consider the increased acidification of the ocean to mean that fish will come pre-seasoned and there will be no need to add vinegar to it :-)
I think the vinegar is to enliven the breading on the fish, not the fish itself.
As recognized by the makers of the movie Soylent Green, all living organisms on the planet rely on the plantonic basis of the planetary food chain. In other words, if the foundational supports of the food chain--the plankton--are removed, then the whole food chain will eventually collapse in its entirety.
The H2S process noted above amounts to a reversal in the evolution of the atmosphere as anerobic bacteria would replace aerobic bacteria and remove oxygen from the atmosphere. See "Microcosmos" or "Ages of Gaia" for a detailed description about the microbial world's role in atmospheric evolution. As you will learn from either of those two books, life on the planet will continue, but in a far different fashion than that present.
As the scientist notes in the article, for the process of acidification to stop, industrial emissions MUST stop, like TODAY. But there is absolutely NO political will on the part of national or industrial leaders to stop their experiment on the planet. And so it will continue, and they will have sealed humanity's doom. The only power capable of changing their behavior comes from the barrel of a gun.
Inhofe would note that the less we eat from the ocean, the more we eat from the Great State of Oklahoma! You can have your sushi bowl, I'll take the dust bowl special!
Hmmmm, "let's see what's on the menu today: Diseased corn-fed beef or... Diseased corn-fed veal" YUm!
No need to be rude. zmann said he IS concerned about the millions and billions of people who depend on the sea.
Joe
If the oceans become lifeless, it's impacts go way, way beyond just not having fish to eat. A life-sustaining atmosphere itself depends on the web of life in the ocean. See my remarks below.
As long as economies based on consumption and buying ever more stuff continue, nothing will be done to reverse this trend.
I really do not see how the masses can be awakened to this to the point where it become imperative the Political leaders act.
The Political process is so corrupted by special interest groups the only way one can get real action on these issues is with a massive swell in Public opinion to put it ahead of EVERY OTHER issue facing us.
The threat of "terrorism" and of "Drugs", the threat posed by an Iran or a Pakistan, the strength of our respective economies, our school systems, our infrastructure...EVERYTHING you can possibly name means nothing if we destroy the oceans ability to support LIFE.
So millions if not billions of people will die thanks to the greed of a few and the stupidty of others.
Sometimes, I wonder how the human race has lasted as long as it has. It's as though all of human "progress" has had the goal of developing the means to annihilate ourselves.
q
Quite true, quickstepper. More ingenuity has been spent developing means of killing each other and torturing each other than for any other reason. The only way we have lasted this long is that there weren't enough of us to do harm on the large scale that has been happening, at an ever increasing pace, for the past two or so hundred years.
Watch a National Geographic special called "The Human Footprint" (it can be seen streaming) and be awestruck at the hideous enormity of human endeavor. We have become a global scale "natural" force, not as huge as perhaps vulcanism, but more widespread and relentless.
More and more I have come to agree with a bumper sticker I saw that said, "The planet's immune system is trying to get rid of you."
Getting through all this with any survivors to a sustainable lifestyle will be a major miracle.
Humans don't have to be as powerful as volcanoes to alter the biosphere enough to destroy ourselves and much of the rest of life on earth. The biosphere is fragile and we have already shown we can do a lot of altering.
Here is a path to change our behavior: a mass movement for free public transit.
http://freepublictransit.org
Joe you bring up a very important point.
I would hope this article would scare people to the point that they will finally wake up to the truth and demand real action. One can only hope that people will stop believing the lie of denial and realize the truth and demand real action to stop this nightmare from happening.
humans are about to go the way of the dodo. self inflicted
as well. the cockroaches are clapping as i type this.
Parents or science teachers: Have students put a clam shell each into a glass container of water, each with a different pH. (clam shell size and water amounts should be the same). Different numbers of tablespoons of vinegar will do for acid.
Measure the size of the shells before the experiment and daily. Children can measure by tracing the shells on a large piece of paper. The dissolution of the shells will be startling. Measurements and math can be part of the lesson.
Acidification of the oceans is very serious. It is more than sufficient reason in and of itself to cut down on CO2 emissions.
Joe
Nice experiment, although I would have students weigh the shells as the loss of mass will not impact size until much time's elapsed.
There is so much you can do with this idea! If your school has scales, then weighing is a good idea, karlof1. Tracing the shells is good for younger students and requires no special equipment. You would be surprised how quickly the size changes. Then you can figure out in which way to measure the tracings with a ruler.
Joe
Yeah, and if you had a microscope, you could watch them disappear altogether.