Slashdot Mirror
Huge Phytoplankton Bloom Found Under Arctic Ice
ananyo writes "Researchers have been shocked to find a record-breaking phytoplankton bloom hidden under Arctic ice. The finding is a big surprise — few scientists thought blooms of this size could grow in Arctic waters. The finding implies that the Arctic is much more productive than previously thought — researchers now think some 25% of the Arctic Ocean has conditions conducive to such blooms (abstract). The discovery also helps to explain why Arctic waters have proven such a good carbon dioxide sink."
Okay... so I couldn't visualize a huge phyto-plankton bloom and TFA was no help. Here's something.
http://spiff.ucsd.edu/chaos.gif
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
They DO get buried away for millions of years. Where do you think petroleum and coal come from?
What typically happens is once the plankton dies, it sinks to the bottom of the sea. If it lands in an anaerobic area (a region of low oxygen, which is not uncommon on the sea floor) then it will not rot. Over time, it could be covered with sediments and blocked off from the rest of the sea. Over the course of millions of years, the dead plankton may be cooked at 70-80 degrees and transform into oil and gas. Once in this liquid or gas form, it can move from this source material. If it is caught in a trap, then it could become an economic oil or gas deposit several dozen million years in the future.
In contrast, most trees fall and rot on the ground. The amazon rainforest is a big area with lots of trees and plants, but there is also lots of organisms actively decomposing the dead material. Some carbon can get stuck in the ground, but it tends to be much less than the sea.
"Sequestering" carbon in any way is about the same as "squestering" trash by burying it in the dump. Just gets it out of sight for awhile, you gotta think about the future.
There's a huge difference between having to deal with global warming now (especially the catastrophes claimed by some) than a slightly elevated CO2 a few millennia or longer from now. Getting it out of sight for a while may well be the difference between being a problem now and never being a problem.
>>>"Sequestering" carbon in any way is about the same as "squestering" trash by burying it in the dump. Just gets it out of sight for awhile, you gotta think about the future.
Disagree.
The carbon was VERY well sequestered for ~700 million years..... until humans came-along and start digging it out of coal mountains/oil wells and burning it. If humans had not done that, the carbon would still be sequestered under the ground and GW not an issue.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Ah yes, it is interesting...tut tut....vis a vis....ergo, ERGO! VIS A VIS!!!
Seriously though, it is interesting. For instance, someone people (maybe you) believe that the "radicals" are the climatologists instead of the people who created these billboards:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder
I mean, that shit doesn't even make sense.
Of course, you'll come back with the lame, intellectually weak "both sides do it" crap. That's how it works these days. You can be on the team represented by millions of dollars of corporate propaganda that in the most nasty of ways paints the entire climatology community as a sinister lying bunch of mooching conspirators--while on the other hand, science can have one or two people who made honest mistakes that don't really affect the big picture of whether AGW is real--and you'll say, uh, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Sorry, you can't split the difference between reasonable and batshit stupid / evil and call it a wash. Face the music. You're a mark. And you did not disappoint the ones who played you. Congrats.
You forgot to add how cool they are.
Do you like the smell of smog? I would hazard a guess that you do not. Fine, you don't believe in global warming. I disagree with you, but won't bother to argue the point. Maybe you should jump on the green bandwagon for the better quality environment it provides you? Stuff like smog, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer have become less of a problem because we implemented 'sweeping policy changes' and 'engineering measures' to solve the issue.
Oil is going away, shouldn't we figure out what to do next?
Isn't energy efficiency better that waste?
What exactly about the global warming policies do you disagree with that wouldn't lead to a cleaning, smarter, stronger future?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Because the reporters want to sell headlines, and a scientist saying "huh, that's funny" doesn't sound as newsworthy as "I AM SHOCKED!"
(Also, the scientists probably look a bit googly-eyed during the interview, and the reporter doesn't realise that's just because of the coffee-fueled all-nighter instead of the bemusement.)
An organism that's been selected over hundreds of millions of years to survive in the current climate. Like, I don't know, humans.
Sure, nothing is objectively better about an oxygen-rich atmosphere than a carbon-dioxide one. An anaerobic organism of the archean era would likely prefer it. But I breathe oxygen. How about you?
You make a false equivalence here. Both sides have clowns, but one side has the vast majority of publishing scientists and the royal scientific societies in many nations. Only one side, as i have seen it, argues with data. Also, to my knowledge only one side has stooped to using pr firms with ties to the tobacco industry.
The map is not the territory.