EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Goodbye, Fish: Rising CO2 Direct Threat to Sea Life
Study: Rising CO2 affecting brains, central nervous systems of sea fish
New research shows the disastrous consequences the world's rising carbon dioxide levels are having on ocean life.
Photo courtesy of Dr Simon Foale, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies A team of researchers from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and James Cook University published their findings in the journal Nature Climate Change. They document how elevated CO2 is "driving fish crazy."
The Australian Associated Press reports that the new research point to ocean problems beyond acidification. From Professor Phillip Munday, one of the researchers:
''We've now established it isn't simply the acidification of the oceans that is causing disruption, as is the case with shellfish and plankton with chalky skeletons. But the CO2 itself is damaging the fishes' central nervous systems.''
Agence France-Presse reports:
The team began by studying how baby clown and damsel fishes performed alongside their predators in CO2-enriched water.
They found that while the predators were somewhat affected, the baby fish suffered much higher rates of attrition.
"Our early work showed that the sense of smell of baby fish was harmed by higher CO2 in the water, meaning they found it harder to locate a reef to settle on or detect the warning smell of a predator fish," said Munday.
The team then examined whether fishes' sense of hearing -- used to locate and home in on reefs at night, and avoid them during the day -- was affected.
"The answer is, yes it was. They were confused and no longer avoided reef sounds during the day. Being attracted to reefs during daylight would make them easy meat for predators."
Prof. Munday issued a stark warning:
“We’ve found that elevated CO2 in the oceans can directly interfere with fish neurotransmitter functions, which poses a direct and previously unknown threat to sea life,” Prof. Munday says.
Prof. Munday said that around 2.3 billion tonnes of human CO2 emissions dissolve into the world’s oceans every year, causing changes in the chemical environment of the water in which fish and other species live.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
101 Comments so far
Show AllIt might be a good idea if this type of rather important scientific information was known by all of the the leaders of the nations of the world? With proper planning that could be done by 2020 or so.
Perhaps through the UN a climate conference could be planned for the leaders of the world nations to meet and discuss it?
We should all be thankful emitting an excessive amount of Co2 and other potent gerenhouse gases, chemical and radioactive poisons due to human activity is not adversely effecting the "brain power" of land animals as well as the fish.
We should not be thankful that internet addiction is affecting our brain.
Why reply to me with that comment Robert? Do you have a problem with internet addiction Robert, or was it because you (may) be pro nuclear and I am not?
During the past nine years I have learned more reading Common Dreams articles than I did during my entire 78 years.... So I'm rather "addicted" one may surmise, to CD I suppose.
We don't learn much of anthing of importance from the MSN or the General Electric's owned newspaper and news magazines.
Perhaps the very most serious issues with ocean acidification, is the continuing demise of the ocean's microscopic green plant life, the "phytoplankton", which suppplies (most) of the planet's life giving oxygen and the rapidly dying coral reefs, which are the beginning of ALL life on Earth.
Sorry, no reflection on you intended.
Most people have been duped into believing that "overpopulation" is responsible for the poverty, suffering and environmental destruction rampant in the world. This is a myth that advances the agenda of the kapitalist parasite class, which now "owns" nearly all the vital resources of Earth.
The impoverished state of over 80% of the human race, who live on less the $10 a day, is the direct result of kapitalist exploitation and oppression.
Overpopulation will not destroy Earth or the human race; overconsumption will. The world's poor, the 80% of the total population of Earth living on $0 to $10 a day, are responsible for 23.4%, less than ¼, of resource consumption.
The remaining 20%, in countries like amerika, consume and waste to the tune of 76.5% of all private consumption.
This means, with a world population of 7 billion, less than 1.5 billion consumer zombies are squandering vast amounts of resources, which are essential to human survival, for the sake of the kapitalist profit machine.
If we dont' stop burning coal to produce electricl power very, very soon and replace that form of energy production with clean energy, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave, there soon won't be 7 billion people on the planet, or even 7.
Well, Vlad is rumored to be Dracula himself, so maybe he's still with us ... :-D
No one believes shale oil and tar sands will start run-away, irreversible over-heating of the planet earth, and that these projects are the thin edge of the wedge that tips earth into hyper-fast climate destruction. They think it is science fiction, and how can you blame them when they are more likely to believe life after death is fact? Ocean acidification will kill most life at the poles, while ocean heating will kill most life at the equator. What could go wrong?
When I see a "new" name enter the threads to post round the clock, "Robert," I know that it is either a paid agent or a recycling of a poster who wants to repeat all his tired lines, but thinks a new screen name would work as productive camouflage. I've seen you use a perfectly sound idea or insight, and then invert it to suit the deflection you wish to leave in its place. In this case, using the idea of those who believe in an after-life as cause for not believing in the Science of Global Warming. The capture of media by big money interests has given felonious think tanks the space to control the narrative on just about anything from war to which politicians are viable. Because of big oil and gas and fracking and coal and nuclear putting their PR people in prominent places, the lies told often enough have managed to alter the statistics whereby 79% believed in global warming a decade ago; but now the number has fallen to 59%. Nice work. This has NOTHING to do with those who hold spiritual beliefs in reincarnation, and everything to do with planned campaigns of lies and obfuscation. Since more and more I tie you with the latter, it doesn't surprise me that you would gloss right over this cause-effect (paid PR) relationship.
That line is right up there with "I'm not a racist/homophobe/bigot. I have (insert minority here) freinds."
"What could go wrong?"
We could have to put up with more of your garbage posts.
It's no longer a question of IF it's happening, and not even how bad will it be, but rather if anyone will survive.
Sorry kids, we blew it.
We lose our pensions, they lose their jobs, we are just beginning. What could go wrong?
Yep, we sure did.
They are only fish, nothing of much consequence. People need to eat like cows anyway.
We lost 40% of the green ocean plankton in 60 years. They provide at least 50% of our oxygen. The dwindling surface vegetation provide the rest. What could go wrong?
And the criminal corporate epicenter of evil called Washington is spending $Trillions on war crimes designed to gain control over more and more CO2 polluting hydrocarbon resources. Insanity to say the least.
CO2 = $$$ = :( = What could go wrong?
Movie Trailer: An Inconsistent Truth
http://www.aninconsistenttruth.com/
We laughed, we cried and a good time was had by all until the end. What could go wrong?
END:CIV
This is just more evidence that the mental illness called 'civilization' is and experiment long out of control and needs to be ended by any means short of ecocide.
We'll be lucky if ecocide is first. What could go wrong?
The awful truth:
Conservatives did this
We ALL did this. What could go wrong?
Yeah...sigh. That will be humanity's epitaph: "____________ did this."
And visiting ET's will ask: "Had they no mirrors?"
A woman on the Italian cruise liner, Costa Concordia, that wrecked off the coast of Giglio, Italy on January 13th, 2012, said: “I told my husband, ‘The boat is tilting to one side,’ and then the other, and he said, ‘Everything is fine. We’re in 2012. There’s too much technology for the boat to go down.’ ’’
I think I'll revisit this quote from time to time.
Only thing missing was the live music.
Oddly enough, the Titanic was a state-of-the-art piece of technology back in its day. Unsinkable! And the year that the Titanic sank? - '12. 1912. One hundred years ago.
In both cases, the ships sank because of human error. In the case of the Titanic, the radio operators failed to alert the bridge about messages they received from other ships alerting it to icebergs in its path. In the case of the Italian cruise liner, it appears as if the captain of the ship made the decision to change the course from the standard nautical route. Great technology, faulty humans.
The capacity for denial and sheer hubris is the undoing of humanity. We need to learn how to learn from the past or we will surely repeat the same mistakes. The fly in the ointment is that we don't know how many mistakes we can get away with before the hammer falls.
We're toast, of course, but must keep on trying to stop the burning of fossil fuels and begin to grow our food locally without oil-based pesticides and fertilizers so we can keep our children's lives from the hell that is to come not much later.
Pesticides and fertilizers kept most of the 7 billion people fed and alive since the beginning of the green revolution. N03, CO2, CH4 are needed to feed them and are all green house gases. Let's stop using them, what could go wrong?
Thanks, Ted. Rampant denial is a serious problem in the world today. Either that, or blatant disrespect for the environment and anyone who doesn't belong to the 1% by ignoring the obvious signs that things need to change; and quickly!! Makes me want to cry, but what's the use? I hope everyone who reads these articles is "Occupying" something, somewhere. I am.
"Perhaps through the UN a climate conference could be planned for the leaders of the world nations to meet and discuss it? "
Yeh, that's what we need, another UN 'conference'. Always money well spent. NOt.
Perhaps while they are there, they can come up with some kind of answer as to how there are any fish at all today, seeing as CO2 was more than double today's levels, historically. How exactly did millions of species of fish survive all that ? FOr that matter, why didn't all life die out ???
Huh ?
Because the sun was much weaker then and the gases took ten times longer to build up, so what could go wrong?
PJM
Your comment has all the hallmarks of "the lobby" or of a willfully ignorant wannabe - therefore no other response than this is justified.
=========Co2 levels were far more than just doubled in Earth's past history... Atmospheric Co2 was over 1,200 ppm.
Why didn't life die you ask? __ It did!,,, Almost ALL life on Earth nearly died 260 million years ago, Earth came very close to being another Venus and the life on Earth died off long before the atmosperic Co2 level reached such high levels.
In addition; it is not just high levels of atmospheric Co2 that will eradicat life on Earth,,, it is also other far more potent atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as CH4, methane gas and others.... If you are implying a high level of atmoshperic Co2 is not our most deadly serious problem ,,, you are wrong,,, very, very wrong.