Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are Our Oceans Dying? Phytoplankton has Declined Terrifying 40% in 60 Years
Microscopic marine algae which form the basis of the ocean food chain are dying at a terrifying rate, scientists said today.
Pacific sardines (Sardinops Sagax) are pictured in 2006. A century-long decline in tiny algae called phytoplankton could disrupt the global ocean food chain, including the human consumption of fish, according to a study released Wednesday.
(AFP/File/Gabriel Bouys) Phytoplankton, described as the 'fuel' on which marine ecosystems run, are experiencing declines of about 1 per cent of the average total a year.
According to the researchers from Dalhousie University in Canada the annual falls translate to a 40 per cent drop in phytoplankton since 1950.
The research into phytoplankton comes as a separate report today offered evidence that the world has been warming for the past 30 years.
The reduction in the amount of algae in the seas could have an impact on a wide range of species, from tiny zooplankton to marine mammals, seabirds, fish and humans.
If confirmed, the decline of the phytoplankton would be a more dramatic change change to nature's delicate balance than the loss of the tropical rainforests, scientist said.
The research, published in the journal Nature, said the declines were linked to rising sea-surface temperatures and changes in the conditions of the ocean, particularly close to the equator.
Most of the declines were seen in polar and tropical regions and in the open ocean, where most phytoplankton are produced.
The scientists suggested that in warmer oceans there was less movement between the layers of the sea, reducing the amount of nutrients delivered from deep water to the surface ocean.
As phytoplankton need both sunlight and nutrients to grow, the limits on the amount of nutrients in the upper layer of the sea affects production of the algae.
In addition, large-scale fluctuations in the climate, such as El Nino in the Pacific, affect phytoplankton on a year-to-year basis, the scientists said.
The research adds to the evidence that global warming was altering the oceans, with the changes in phytoplankton potentially having an impact on the health of the seas and on fisheries which people rely on for food.
Lead author Daniel Boyce said: 'Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline in phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans.
Co-author Boris Worm, said: 'Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system.
'They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface carbon dioxide and ultimately support all our fisheries.
'An ocean with less phytoplankton will function differently and this has to be accounted for in our management efforts.'
Fellow author Marlon Lewis added: 'Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are another important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by the effects of fishing and pollution.'
It comes as scientists today announced that the world is 'unequivocally' warming and has been for the past 30 years.
Researchers at the Met Office compiled data from a series of several independent studies including sea levels, air temperature, humidity and glacier loss.
The review also said the past decade had been the warmest on record, while Met Office scientists said this year was on track to be the warmest ever.
The report comes in the wake of the 'climategate' furore around climate science, which stemmed from emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The scandal prompted prompted claims from sceptics that scientists were manipulating data to back up a theory of global warming.
They were since been cleared of any wrongdoing but were accused by an inquiry set up in the wake of the scandal of being secretive and unhelpful.
But today's report published as part of the annual State of the Climate review led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that global warming is 'undeniable', scientists said.
The Met Office looked at surface temperature records and other aspects of climate that scientists predict will change as a result of increased levels of greenhouse gases, such as warming of the ocean, increased humidity and reductions in Arctic sea ice.
For each of the 10 indicators they compiled several studies done independently of each other, revealing broad agreement between different analyses on what was happening to the climate.
Seven of the areas, including air and sea surface temperatures, the amount of heat in the ocean and humidity, were on the rise, while three areas - the extent of Arctic sea ice, glaciers and winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere - were in decline.
Dr Stott said: 'Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming.
'When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability.
'Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.'
Many believe that the rise in temperatures around the world is a natural, cyclical process of the world warming and cooling over time.
An Ipsos Mori survey of 1,822 people for Cardiff University in June found 40 per cent believed the seriousness of global warming was exaggerated.
But Dr Stott said studies showed the changes were consistent with an increase in greenhouse gases, which provided the 'glaringly obvious explanation' for why the climate was changing.
But he said it was possible the reason for the warming could be due to something scientists had not thought of - an 'unknown unknown' - but the patterns of change were not consistent with other suggested causes, such as solar activity or volcanoes.
- Posted in
91 Comments so far
Show All...the unknown unknown...a recent extended solar minimum and a predicted massive solar maximum by our science agencies does cause one to think "is there something else"...the oceans, 2/3 of the globe...one hell of a ride...
I haven't heard any predictions of a coming "massive" solar maximum. Do you have a link?
I have read some alarmist articles about how much more vulnerable our satellites are to even a low solar maximum, but that's a function of our technology, not the Sun, and it may even be an exaggeration ...
Here is a link to the best guess for the upcoming solar maximum.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/
Summation, good news the upcoming solar peak is expected to be lowest activity of any cycle since 1928. The bad news is that this maximum is expected to be about the same as the "weak" one in 1859 that created the greatest solar flare in recorded history, shorting out telegraph lines across the country.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/
Thanks, but that prediction preceded the deep solar minimum that modified the picture thoroughly. NC-Tom's link below is much more recent ...
Soylent Green seems to be relevant.
I already have a 10 year supply stored in the basement... no worries mate!
And what is your address?
You have a 10 year supply of human waffers ?
Yup, they are made of elite bankers, they call them "Bankster Bars"...
Tastes like chicken
Don't be eating human flesh. Which part do you like the best?
We will not kill the oceans ... the oceans will survive and its inhabitants will adapt over the course of the next couple of million years or so. But will man survive? Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will drink beer and tell lies all day. Kill off all the fish, and you will kill off all the people who thought the fish would last infinitely. Things are changing fast on the planet, campers. Are you ready for the ride that the greedy, rich bastards have signed us all up for?
Forget fish. The mercury and PCBs make it dangerous anyway.
We should maybe start an online Cannibal Cookbook. Pork recipes can be easily adapted, I hear, though the cuts will differ. I suppose the bacon will be too fatty, which is a shame.
Our campfire cooking skills will be finely honed, though; and by the sound of things there'll be abundant firewood, what with all the dead forests.
"Many believe that the rise in temperatures around the world is a natural, cyclical process of the world warming and cooling over time."
As soon as I see this bone thrown to the climate deniers, I turn to another channel. Surely, CD, there must be a better reporting of this scientific paper than through TheDailyMail/UK
Funny you should say. I change the channel when I encounter the manmade climate change nonstarter. To me, people can argue from their armchairs, into infinity, about climate change, whether or not it's occurring, whether or not it's manmade, and it does nothing about our egregious human habits of consumption and pollution. A position on climate change is what allows a politician to do nothing about subsidizing green alternatives or punishing pollution. Climate change arguments lead to Al Gore jokes, and it makes me sick.
I doubt that climate change, whether manmade or natural, has as much to do with our dying oceans as the junk we put into the oceans, from oil spills, from dumping, from agrochemical runoff, from factory runoff, from the tanning lotions people slather on before wading into the water, even from all the petroleum powered watercraft coming and going, putting down the same slick you see on every driveway and parking lot. Mainly when I think of our dying oceans, which I've been thinking about since projectcensored.org ran a story called "our filthy oceans" several years ago, I suspect oil spills, off the California coast, off the Gulf coast, off the Mexico coast, off the China coast, the reported, the unreported, etc., and I suspect the continuous bombardment of ag chemical runoff.
Another huge ocean pollutant is carbon dioxide itself. As the ocean continuous to absorb more and more man-made carbon dioxide the water becomes increasing acidic and our corals are dying off because of it. Coral is home to 25% of all sea life.
BD,
An increased level of carbon dioxide does make the ocean acidic, thereby making life difficult for corals and animals with shells. And a warmer ocean does affect certain ocean ecosystems--those around the poles, especially, but also the kelp forests around the US west coast. The latest report concerning phytoplankton density blames global warming; that will affect all ocean food chains. Climate change is not irrelevant to the degradation of the ocean. Furthermore, there is no real argument among those who publish on climate change in scientific journals: global warming is happening and it is due to human actions.
It is wrong to ignore climate change when addressing questions of environmental degradation. It is the elephant in the room. Besides, there are things people do that do not relate to overconsumption, things such as overgrazing on marginal land, destroying forests for a variety of reasons, controlling the human population--all of which pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and degrade ecosystems. The truth of human-caused climate change should be one of many arguments that compel people to stop the awful things they are doing to this fair planet we live on.
I understand what you're saying. I have no position on climate change personally. There have been bizarre geological cycles in the history of earth, and there are people who argue vigorously the opposite of what you argue, and like always, it goes nowhere. What I'm saying is that if we focused on the destruction and the pollution, the argument would go in another direction, rather than climate-change-not-climate-change people slamming into each other eternally, until it's too late. Our so called leaders would have to do more than say "science doesn't show manmade climate change" and use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing, or worse, to continue throwing taxpayer subsidies to big oil and global agribusiness.
And maybe this is a bit unscientific, but don't you think that all the junk humans have dumped, spilled or trailed into the ocean absorbs heat and holds onto it?
Oy, I'm doing it myself. Somebody stop me.
In addition to the junk, such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff that causes dead (anaerobic) zones, there is massive evidence that human activity is the cause of increased rates of ocean acidification. We burn carbon, spilling CO2 into the atmosphere, which then mixes with ocean water to create acid. The lower pH of the ocean interferes with the calcification and photosynthesis processes in organisms. There will be severe problems with the food web and with oxygen production.
In addition, we do not know the effects of all the industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals that enter our waters. We do not know, because there is no profit in studying this and there is a lot of profit in drugs and plastics. But we must stop treating our waters as garbage cans and we must reduce burning carbons as a source of energy.
Joe
Ah, "profit". Now we're getting somewhere.
Bliss Doubt, just having a doubt doesn't guarantee you bliss. Sorry :)
>>>And maybe this is a bit unscientific, but don't you think that all the junk humans have dumped, spilled or trailed into the ocean absorbs heat and holds onto it?
That's easy to resolve.
The amount of heat that would be transferred to the ocean due to a solid or liquid entering the ocean at a temperature higher than the water temperature (only then it can transfer heat *to* the ocean water, obviously) will be m*C*dT where 'm' is the mass of the object (could be any solid or even the liquid spilled or dumped), 'C' its specific heat capacity and 'dT' the temperature difference. In the case of liquids, there may be an additional quantity called the heat of mixing (which can go either way, depending on the type of liquid). Although this is a simple estimation, climate models that have been developed over decades are far more complex and comprehensive - but usually starting from simple, basic phenomenon that most people can understand.
But the major source of ocean warming by far is the direct absorption of solar radiation - orders of magnitude greater than any additional heat that would be absorbed by the stuff dumped or spilled by humans. The ocean is not only a tremendous "heat sink", it is also a sink for CO2. However, the ocean's CO2 absorption capacity decreases with the concentration of CO2 that's already there (so more CO2 remains in the atmosphere, trapping more heat from the sun). The warming of the ocean and the increased acidity (due to the additional CO2) are already playing havoc with marine life, and now this article about phytoplankton - which directly impacts **our** breathing oxygen. Maybe one of these days, if not right away.
There are all kinds of positive feedback loops - the biggest being due to the loss of Arctic ice (decreasing its albedo, or ability to reflect sunlight back into space, while ocean water absorbs heat, thus accelerating the melting rate) and the release of methane gas trapped under permafrost (and methane is almost 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2 is - so it traps more heat, causing more methane to escape; apparently there are indications this is starting to happen sooner than expected).
So I see NO REASON to shy away from talking about climate change just so as not to offend some denialists, and instead talk about pollution that their brains can grasp. There is no reason to do that especially when you can see that such people have NO INTENTION of making any damn change in their lifestyle. They pretend to have some kind of independent thinking that allows them to disbelieve or question the climate scientists, whereas you look closely at their talking points - they can ALL be traced to an organized denial industry - including the predictable invoking of Al Gore's name. If Gore says it's happening, then it must be fake. They just try to appear contrarian just for the sake of appearing different, but there is a great deal of conformity - if you can see through their talking points. They can do so because these people are affluent and live in a relatively comfortable climate zone - compared to a Bangladeshi or some Pacific islander or an Inuit community. They are dangerous people. Because stupidity and arrogance can be dangerous too.
Alcyon,
Good science, nice response.
Alcyon, I don't know if doing anymore talk or change on climate change will make a dent in Washington. A friend of mine who works for the Dept of Energy explained to me how meetings go. On one side, you have concerned environmentalists and general scientists to back up their assertions. On the other side, it's Big Oil. The concerned ones try their best to make their research clear to those in charge of the dept but the oil tycoons always end up successfully giving slick talk and before you know it, the concerned ones are put on the defensive. By the end of the meetings, the environmentalists are in "yup yup" defeat while the oilies are ready to celebrate another influential victory. That's the general pattern. The way I see it, Big Oil are the starfish that can rotate their predatory operations with five arms and the concerned environmentalists are the mollusks, oysters, and sea urchins being eaten alive.
maxpayne, maybe each one of us should get out and go on an evangelical mode - but using some techniques from direct marketers (I know, I hate both those groups, but still...). Use any and every chance to talk to people - especially youngsters, and see if we can win just one more "convert" every now and then. I don't know...ultimately the only way to take on the denial industry and the oil industry that funds them is by using citizen power.
Someone had posed this question on a different story:
"Calling All Future-Eaters" by Chris Hedges
www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/19-2
>>>earthlinked wrote: "... our corporations are giving us the consumers exactly what we demand. We can cast blame on the corporations, but in the final analysis, aren't we consumers really to blame? Thoughts? Suggestions?"
And I had replied along these lines - as I said above (Alcyon July 26th, 2010 3:03 pm).
I thought there would be more responses regarding what we could do.
We need to think seriously what each of us can do - not just at the personal level, but in terms of building support for some major change.
Those solar powered chargers and gizmos I see on the market could be a start. Getting younger evangelicals to enjoy using the power of the sun to charge their devices might make them more inclined into demanding that our source for energy should be focused on the sun. I have seen a few mini wind-powered devices on the market to add to the goodies list. Call it spoiling the kids or evangelical but that seems to be the easiest way out. Training them into caring about what our plastics are made of and talking about plant-based fibers other than corn or soy will have to wait a while. Ted Markow also referred me to meetup.com as a great place to reach out to locals and share one's ideas a few months ago and my wife and I love it.
Max I am not trying to be a smartass, I am just curious about the young evangelistic children you talk about, using solar power on their devices. Are these the same young people that are being made to join the Army, and Airforce to teach Christ to the Muslims in Iraq ?
It isn't too hard to get young evangelicals to join given what they are taught but the richer they are, the more draft dodging they will become. In theory, anyone can go green and still be pro-war. The Pentagon is working hard on that.
I used the word "evangelical" in a different meaning. Merriam-Webster defines it as:
"marked by militant or crusading zeal".
In those countries where tax subsidies have gone to solar energy instead of oil & gas, solar energy use has spread dramatically. In the Reagan era there was a US solar energy company that left here because of the oil/gas subsidy landscape, and went to Europe, Denmark I think, became immensely profitable, and won a Nobel prize. I wish I could remember where to link you to the story.
My only point is that climate change is too big an issue around which to get anything done. It is a never ending cocktail party argument, a never ending political procrastination zone. As long as people are divided into the climate change/not climate change factions, the arguments will continue forever, while nothing gets done. Besides that, denying climate change seems to be considered right wing, while believing in climate change is considered left wing, and the submoronic human species loves to perpetuate that division.
The poisoning of our oceans with junk is from the same stuff we do to cause climate change. If we focus on the poison and not the climate, maybe we can get something done. Obviously politicians can deny any climate change science. They can't deny dying oceans.
Or maybe they can.
>>>If we focus on the poison and not the climate, maybe we can get something done.
Bliss Doubt, do you know HOW MANY books have come out, some with more than one edition with updates and all that, since the 1960's and 1970's documenting the pollution and the poisoning and calling for a radical change? And there have been books on the finite nature of resources and the need to cut down our consumption - also with multiple editions. And books on the effects of meat production and consumption. Do you know that people like James Hansen have been sounding the alarm from the 1980's about climate change itself? In fact, a US government-appointed scientific team found clear evidence for man-made climate change as early as 1980 (I can't remember the name of this team or the report - but Hansen's testimony to Congressional committees on climate change were in late 1980's). The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997.
The situation has long since moved to a crisis point. I do not know whose fault it is that people are refusing to see. But it does not require OTHERS to stop talking of climate change and focus on pollution. No. The evidence is clear: these people have no intention of doing a damn thing. What else can be done, I don't know. But you can't wake up someone who's pretending to sleep - that, I know from experience.
Read Derrick Jensen's "Endgame". He calls for a complete dismantling of "civilization" itself - because he is convinced that humans are not going to change their ways. I don't know how many will listen to him, and I am still holding on to hope that something can be done to change course. The urgency has been building up for decades now. If someone is just waking up, it's they that need to do their homework.
Focusing on pollution is going to achieve zilch if warnings on climate change haven't had an effect. Cruise ships, fishing trawlers, shrimp farms, etc., have all been poisoning the oceans. So, do you think people are going to stop going on a cruise or stop eating seafood just on hearing that? They might when their money runs out. But not before that.
Those who are comfortably placed - and many Americans are, compared to those who are going to be affected first - will likely lack the sensitivity to listen and understand when someone points out the errors of their ways. I don't know how to get through to them.
If you think you can reason with such people and convince them using other arguments such as pollution, then I'll have to say, ok, whatever works. But at this moment, I don't think I would do that personally - because I've been reading on the need to stop polluting since the mid 1980's, and things have moved far beyond "just" some pollution here and there.
I have seen similar patterns of division play out on other issues as well. Everyone can agree on what is wrong and should continue to inform others no doubt but what to do about it is always in limbo. The people who vehemently deny climate change usually end up being the same people on the right. I do not believe you are one of them. Your being neutral about it doesn't make you rightwing because I understand that you want to see what can be done to address the root causes so that we shouldn't be subjected to discussing climate change for the next 20 years with nothing to achieve from this. I commend whatever efforts you are making towards saving the oceans and I hope that your ideas will be taken into serious consideration by others. A combination of substitutes, different ideas, and mutual cooperation can and will make a difference.
Hi Stanley, always a friendly encounter. I guess I do what everybody can do, with support for my local chapter of sierra club, donations to ilovemountains.org, voting the right way whenever there really is a choice, political donations carefully placed, contacting my elected representatives (a nearly pointless exercise in shouting at brick walls), buying second hand, used, recycled as much as I can, living very near where I work (to avoid long commutes and dependence on gasoline), and like many of my friends, I engage in prayers and symbolic acts with the hope of bringing about that shift we are all hoping for, before it's too late. I honestly believe that we humans went too far when we gave up what we now call "superstitions" about the nature spirits and our ancestors. I worship the ground we walk on and I mourn the disfigurement of this planet's great beauty. I fear the angry retribution of the great spirits of disappearing species, the ancient forests, and rivers and the ocean. As a human, I'm ready to die if it will help. Possibly a great human die-off will be the only thing that will save this planet, and probably there will be survivors, few and far between, who will know what not to do in order to continue evolving. To avoid the human die-off would involve such a sea change in attitudes toward consumption and profits, I don't see it happening.
Or maybe instead of dying off we will simply stop reproducing. I read of testing of genetically modified foods on mammals which caused fertility decreases with each successive generation, and we know that the load of plastics and other contaminants in the human biological system is contributing to loss of fertility.
Bliss, don't take it too hard on yourself. You have the confidence to do what is right. Some actions take cooperation and that requires team confidence. You are not fault there. I don't know what it will take to raise enough awareness on the dangers of plastics and GMO but all I can say is don't give up. We may face karma for our past actions that may have led to harming the planet but we should not give up our attempts to repair and improve. Good luck.
Bliss Doubt, I can see you are being sincere in you what you say and do in your everyday life. I also agree with you on the "superstitions". I think the net effect of such superstitions of the past is one of far less harm to nature and to one's community. That kind of a superstition is any day better than the superstitions of nationalism, patriotism, democracy (as it prevails today), etc. And the worst of all - a belief in the free market and capitalism to come up with the right solution.
I just don't agree on the inevitability or even the desirability of a human die off. Because I am convinced that those who will die first would invariably have the least to do with the current mess. I wish there were some system in nature that goes after the biggest culprits first - one that we can witness in our lifetime. It's because of the unfairness of it all, we have to fight. The unfairness and the urgency of it all - that's the reason for some of us insisting on focusing on climate change - because we have to try and avoid the worst, if possible. Because, like I said, those who will be affected most will not be those you will try to convince. And I seriously doubt they would even care for some invisible victims of their actions.
I can see your point - I think. I think you speak from the point of view of what is possible. Unfortunately, I see that as not good enough, and too little, too late. Frankly, I too feel stuck. I say it's not good enough, but I don't know a way to make everyone see anything better.
God darn echo deleted
"And maybe this is a bit unscientific, but don't you think that all the junk humans have dumped, spilled or trailed into the ocean absorbs heat and holds onto it?"
BD,
It appears to me, you have no real science education. Thermodynamics would instruct you that pissing in the pool is not going to appreciably heat your pool in winter, but covering it with a "solar blanket" a thin layer of Global Warming plastic on the surface, will.
Earth Science, Geology, or even Astronomy would instruct you that CO2 has never increased so rapidly in so short a period of time, and it coincides exactly with industrial output by humans releasing fossil fuel carbons into the atmosphere. We are turning into our sister planet Venus, which has so much CO2 that it melts lead at the surface. I would advise taking a course at a Community College, except that Republicrats have stolen the funding for Education in these dark war ages.
Here is what used to be on wiki before the climate deniers sabotaged the site:
[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
TJ
Golly gee, thank you sooo much for the free education Mr. Wizard.
All of the climate change "teachers" who have responded to my comments have totally missed my point while totally making my point.
I give up.
I appreciate your point, if I understand you...
Example: the creation and use of solar-powered gizmos poisons the world and fills the dumps the same as traditional-powered ones...
Talk is not action...debate is not change...correct is not corrective...
Legal is not intelligent, or moral...
Society is to be made and remade, not inherited and passed along, unquestioned, as the living world suffers devastation before our very eyes...
The land is key...the land must be free...
Bliss Doubt, speaking for myself, with all due respect, I don't think I missed your point. Your point was that we should not (or need not) emphasize climate change, but instead focus on pollution (since the causes are often the same) - so that we could try and get something done. Your rationale was that there are people who do not accept man-made climate change. And you yourself say you "have no position on climate change personally". This clearly implies to me that you are one of those that is for some reason not yet ready to accept the conclusions of so many scientists and national science academies of so many countries regarding climate change.
I have no doubt that the "doubts" over climate change in the media are manufactured and spread by an organized, reasonably well-funded denial industry, which are then picked up by people who are simply not ready to make a change in their lifestyle. Either that or denying AGW fits with their world-view. Or maybe it's considered "cool" in their circle. That's why they do what they do - including working as unpaid foot-soldiers for the denial industry. I am not convinced that the primary reasons for their doubts are scientific - because it's easy to trace every one of their talking points to some dubious blog.
Imagine a bus full of people. There are a few people inside who are drunk and partying like crazy, and one of them is even driving it now. All along the way, people are warning from the sides - that there is a cliff ahead, and there's poor visibility and to stop. But the partying people do not slow down, because they don't believe there's a cliff ahead. Now imagine you are one of the passengers inside, scared to death, but you are not one of the party animals.
We are all passengers **inside** this bus taken over by some maniacs. It doesn't matter if the cliff is a hundred miles ahead or twenty miles ahead or even if there's no cliff (however, judging by the credentials of those doing the warning, and judging by how long such warnings have been given, I have no reason to doubt them). I want the damn bus to stop until we make sure it's safe to proceed.
There have been AMPLE warnings about pollution. Do you think the people who haven't listened in the last few decades are now going to listen, just because you don't "offend" them by avoiding talking about climate change?
Sometimes there **IS** such a thing as too little, too late.
Bliss Doubt, the careless actions of putting junk into the ocean which stem from consumption our economy is tied to that you mentioned makes a big difference in affecting the health of the ocean. People will not notice it so much probably because the ocean is somewhat tolerant but a huge oil spill or a leak from the well will get people debating suddenly until the crisis appears over. You raise excellent points on the merits of talking about climate change as well. Here, I find that people either act like they are getting used to it or they find something unusual to blame for climate change. My chief concern is that the true price of crude oil is being distorted on purpose. Even at the price of $4 a gallon at the pump, alternative sources of energy barely got a hearing and when the prices were back down to below $3 a gallon, it was business as usual. I can't believe that despite the damage done to the Gulf Coast the gas prices never went up to at least $3.50 a gallon on average in the US. The only way most people will be remotely sensitive to the junk being thrown into the ocean is if crude oil hitting at least $500 a barrel makes its way into higher prices on every petro-manufactured product. The organic substitutes would have to be cheaper and that seems to be possible only if the manufacturers think that they can profit better from organic than petro.
The causal relation is at least in part reversed: killing the oceans will create more climate change. It may well be the major factor in what we have experienced so far.
More heat may result in more toxicity as well: fewer plants, more AC, anyone?
At any rate, I see no reason to treat them as mutually exclusive. The presence of one does not reduce the importance of the other.
Al Qaeda did global warming.
NOW can we stop it??
Plans to bomb the oceans of the world are being drawn up at the Pentagon. FISHCOM is being established. The CIA is training horseshoe crabs as agents.
"They produce half of the oxygen we breathe."
This is the most explosive fact in the article, and it was buried in the middle, without the significance of it being explored.
If we destroy the phytoplankton which produce half our oxygen, and the forests, which are responsible for much of the rest, what does that leave for human beings and other animals to breathe?
Also, to title this article "Are Our Oceans Dying?" instead of stating the obvious, that our oceans indeed are dying, is a craven cop-out.
Yeah, I think they got their heads in the air too... cause how much of that oxygen is bein destroyed from the production and waste of plastics that are choking the oceans oxygen today as we live and breath....
Now, Thanks an accomplishment!
Don't worry. The UN can then declare breathing to be a human right... and proceed to do nothing.
Joe
I think the Planet will survive, but not sure we will.
We could go live in outer space, and throw our trash in a Black Hole or something.
I think NASA has plans bein worked on now....
They say a large something Force of gravity, it would seem, has been detected sucking up large super clusters of galaxies never seen before... Wow.
Anyway everything we thought was true about the big bang is being, shall we say, re considered.....
I myself don't buy that everything in the universe came out of a pregnant atom 13.7 billion years ago and it did not expand into anything because it created everything... a great circular SCI- FI fairy tale.
But if anyone can explain it to me... I am here to listen and learn
Now why does matter need a Higgs Boson to be matter?
and what would it look like if you cornered one?
But I agree with you the planet will survive.