Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Marine Wildlife Is Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Study Finds
A study has found that a decreased pH level in the antarctic is damaging the shells of native wildlife. "Marine snails in seas around Antarctica are being affected by ocean acidification, scientists have found.
An international team of researchers found that the snails' shells are being corroded.
Experts says the findings are significant for predicting the future impact of ocean acidification on marine life.
The results of the study are published in the journal Nature Geoscience (abstract).
The marine snails, called "pteropods", are an important link in the oceanic food chain as well as a good indicator of ecosystem health. 'They are a major grazer of phytoplankton and... a key prey item of a number of higher predators - larger plankton, fish, seabirds, whales,' said Dr Geraint Tarling, Head of Ocean Ecosystems at the British Antarctic Survey and co-author of the report."
The lower the pH gets, the better chlorine will work. Being closer than ever to pool-quality water in the ocean, the Antarctic people should spin this and enjoy a boom in tourism! I bet they can't wait to see more people that those bearded scientists who don't spend a dime on penguin art.
lucm, indeed.
The BBC has had bias issues as far as politics is concerned, but I haven't heard any bias from them against science. That is unless you consider ocean acidification an indicator of global warming which certain fringe (stupid) groups consider to be politics.
The BBC has had bias issues as far as politics is concerned, but I haven't heard any bias from them against science. That is unless you consider ocean acidification an indicator of global warming which certain fringe (stupid) groups consider to be politics.
The big question to ask is cui bono? I think this is all a preconceived British plot to wipe out the French by depriving them of all their snails.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.
They took a decision that there was no case to be made for having always to 'balance' the reporting of mainstream science with opposing views, most of which are not represented in the scientific literature anyway. In the same way that a natural history programme should not have to balance each mention of evolution with a creationist argument.
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq) [distilled water reaction]
2NaOH(aq) + CO2(g) Na2CO3(aq) + H2O(l) [sodium hydroxide reaction]
Explanatory:
Carbon dioxide reacts with water at standard temperature and pressure to form a weak acid and hydrogen ions (both in solution), adjusting pH *at saturation* from about 7.6-6.0. That it is known yet underreported that the world's oceans are the carbon sink to beat all others, puts lie to the CO2 problem and a simple classroom experiment with distilled water, a straw, sodium hydroxide solution and phenol indicator proves this.
Incidentally, for the carbon sink to fail would require the oceans to be heated to just below boiling. Not likely to happen yet for around 5 billion years.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
a friend of mine just started at portsmouth university, studying marine biology, and we happened to talk about this subject. the situation's actually much worse than being reported here, because the coral reefs are *also* being corroded. given that coral reefs are where the majority of the ocean's life-forms congregate, if that eco-system collapses we're in real serious trouble. i say trouble: the planet's likely to survive, and to re-generate life over the next hundred millenia or so. it's just that humans really won't be around to enjoy being here, that's all.
Here is a summary of the paper, as I understand it:
1)Deep ocean antarctic water is corrosive to pteropod shells (for various reasons, including water pressure, composition of the water, etc).
2)Normally, from time to time there are upwells of the deeper water, which theoretically can cause pteropod shells to corrode.
3)These scientists developed a technique to observe corrosion in the shells, and observed that at around 200m, the shells are indeed corroded.
4)If ocean acidification increases, then it will cause more corrosion.
If ocean acidification increases, it could cause problems for wildlife. There's nothing particularly controversial here.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Too bad you apparently stopped at chem 101. In Chem 102 one might learn that reactions are not instantaneous.
Have you ever tried to dissolve atmospheric carbon dioxide in water? If so, you will note that the rate of dissolution is not very high.
As a result, though the ocean is fully capable of dissolving the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels, it will do so very slowly -- over a multiple-century timescale. (And it will disrupt marine ecosystems in doing so.) Incidentally, this process is already incorporated into all climate models.
To make the CO2 dissolve faster, you could use a stirring system to incorporate gas into the bulk liquid and to distribute the bicarbonate evenly. Good luck finding one big enough to stir the ocean.
Alternatively, you could use a strong base, like hydroxide, to deprotonate bicarbonate and drive the process to completion. Unfortunately, strong bases are not available as raw materials. Their production results in the release of large amounts of acidic chemicals like chlorine, which must be disposed of or else they will acidify the ocean and cancel out the effect of all the hydroxide.
i wonderif someone wants to do a study on the fossil record to see if a weakening in shell strength of ocean dwelling pteropods is highly corellated to known extinctions
My guess is no, because examining the corrosion in live specimens was difficult enough; they needed a scanning electron microscope. I would guess it near impossible to examine in fossils, if you could even find enough to test.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In 100 years, by the time the more alarmist predictions suggest we'll be dealing with 5 degrees more global heat, we'll be busy terraforming Mars,
That's really optimistic.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yep, things change. 98% of all species are extinct. However, we're driving the car now. And heading into the cliff wall with it. No matter what happens, we probably won't be able to cause extinction of the human race, but we might get fairly close.
I'm kind of divided as to whether or not this is a good thing in the long run. The sad part about it is that we can effect a much more gradual change to the environment - one that will leave the planet more or less the same (and remember, WE like it the way it is). It just looks like we aren't going to take that road.
Hang on to your butts.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you consider their decision to not waste time (ours and theirs) with nonsense like giving air to "opposing viewpoints" as "alarmist", I suppose we could say that's the case. Most of us, however, don't consider the rantings of superstitious fools (or those of a particular political ax to grind) as "opposing viewpoints" in the arena of science. There are rules to that game, and "...because the Bible says..." does not qualify as "research". So, no. Your attempt to divert the discussion into a questioning of the BBC's credibility fails, this time. Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Okay, lets put the dots really close together for you. No, the oceans acidity doesn't change all the time. That last time it changed like this the planet changed from a snowball into a sauna bath and it followed perhaps the largest extinction indecent in the planet's history (read up on the snowball earth.) This is not a minor change. This isn't a "Okay so we lose the parrotfish.. who the 'F' cares about parrotfish?" This is a global change in ocean chemistry attacking one of the primary constituents of zooplankton.
I'm guessing you're not a biologist, so let me give you an example. If something came along and wiped out all the grass. You're immediate response would be big whoop, no more mowing. The problem is that all grains are grasses. So everything that eats grass or grain get's impacted immediately. No more bread, or rice, or oats or barely or corn or millet (you want to think about what proportion of the human diet is grain based, its the only thing keeping large parts of the third world alive.) So no more milk. No more beef. In fact Cows, Pigs, Chickens, Turkeys, Horses, Deer, basically every grass eating animal, mammals including rodents at the bottom of the food chain, birds, insects... all gone, see yah, then the predators that eat them... like you and me... gone, gone, gone. Can you see the implications now. No Grass BAD!!!
So, animals with shells all have a larval stages and are at the bottom of the oceans food chain. Anything that kills them is EQUALLY BAD for all the critters up the food chain (again that includes us human beings.) The sudden loss of zooplankton causes a subsequent super bloom in phytoplakton (also a potentially bad thing all by itself.) This is not some far off maybe someday event. Coral Reef are bleaching this very moment as I write (one of the largest and more diverse ecosystems on the planet responsible for more kinds of fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, you name it) is on the verge of catastrophic collapse. You can't geoengineer extinct. Gone is gone. You think the cost of cutting back on burning carbon is expensive, figure out how much it'll cost replace the services that nature provides for free with manmade alternatives. You can't unscramble an egg. You can't fix this once you're satisfied its broken, because you'll be in a moving train barreling down the tracks and the only thing you'll be able to do is gird yourself for the crash.
Its all tied together. Its all based on Carbon. There's too much where it doesn't belong and now its beginning to be a real problem. Soon it will be a problem for which human beings will be unable to address. Why would anybody with the vaguest hint of sanity let something get so bad. Sorry, its inconvenient. Expensive. Even hurtful to developing people, who always take the brunt of what fails in the world. Simply letting it get worse will ensure the impact on those same people will be nothing less than devastating. Playing Russian Roulette with the future of humanity is far more irresponsible than acting now to reduce carbon, improve efficiency, develop alternative energy sources, and come up with new technologies to better sequester the byproducts of our civilization. Wake up, the coffee is burning! Right Now.
I don't know what planet you live on, but the one I live on is tangled up in bureaucrats and a collapsing middle class. Think for a moment. We haven't been on the moon in nearly 45 years. You think we can put enough people on Mars to make a difference if we break our ecosystem? By when? The numbers are all in. The hottest years in history all this decade. The ocean is rising. The oceans chemistry it getting dangerously unbalanced. Please read about the rise of slim. Lakes dying and changing to Hydrogen Sulfide cycles below a 100 feet. The list is huge, but its all point at the inescapable certainty than man is toxic and poisoning his mater. I agree that a human diaspora to the stars is the answer, but destroying the ecosystem before you can leave is just stupid.
Because whats going extinct is at the bottom of the food chain. It means everything above it goes extinct... and no, this hasn't happened in hundreds of millions of years. The impact is profound, and sudden (on biological scales) and devastating to all life on the planet. You and your children will be impacted. The ocean covers 3/4 of the planets surface and people in Kansas are impacted by the ocean directly. Someone is telling you that you have cancer, and your response is "Tell me when I hit stage four, then I'll worry." Interesting, but loony. Perhaps a little chemo and surgery now are indicated, Hmmmm.
I don't know, we haven't even had much luck yet with biodome's here on earth. And that was a lot easier.....
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah those goofy scientists... what will they say next. New York being stomped flat by a super storm? The hottest years in history all being in the last decade? The upper atmosphere colder than any time on record. The oceans turning into a carbonated beverage! What do they know? Let's use up all the coal and oil and gas. What could possible go wrong?
This is just one of the realistic doomsday scenarios that people need to take seriously- the collapse of food chain in the oceans.
Remember, it doesn't have to be that oceans are completely and totally dead for people to start acting as if they are. It's enough that they no longer provide food or jobs for a lot of people, especially in developing nations. When the oceans are seen to be moving inevitably and inexorably to that condition , then it's as good as real, just like a stock that people understand is going to zero is as good as worthless even when it's price is still positive.
If the really small things that support the fisheries- thing like phytoplankton which support the zooplankton which in turn support start to fail it takes with it the krill, mackerel, sardines, anchovies, tuna then upwards to the fish we eat -and we'll know if it starts to happen- then there will be price-panic food buying with the result that right then, tens of millions start to starve and economies start to collapse.
It doesn't have to be in full effect for the full societal reaction to get going, it just has to be *seen* as going into full effect. That's when the chaos, the insane inflation of food, the rioting, the wars and uncontrollable immigration and nation destabilizing kicks in. That's when the civil wars break out and the uber-terrorism- uniting the entire 3rd and 2nd worlds in a death-lust for the West kicks in.
Do you like your life? Do you like sitting down at your computer and surfing and learning and enjoying life? Would you like to continue in the same vein? Would you like things to generally keep going progressing slowly forward? Would you like your culture and civilization to continue? Are you *conservative* in that large sense of the word? Because right now the "conservatives" in America are the most reactionary, radical literally suicidal and culture-cidal group of cretins ever created.
Perhaps the real conservatives can step forward at this time. The guys who were in the Rod and Gun clubs, the sportsmen who were conservationists, like the WWII vets who started the ski resorts in the Rockies, maybe the people *like that* would like to step forward and reclaim their party and protect the earth from the coke snorter conservatives, the narcissist conservatives, the Aspberger conservatives for whom politics comes down to single issues like taxes or Obamacare or abortion. I'm talking about The Glenn Becks the Sara Palins the Grover Norquists the Ralph Reeds the fucking Christian Right and their one-Jesus-fixes-all-problems fucking form of goddamned mental retardation. I can't even think of one person that fits description of a real conservative in the whole motherfucking Republican Party. Oh, wait. John Huntsmen. OK. One. One motherfucker in the entire fucking party.
The deniers war against reality and taking immediate dramatic action while it still has the chance of being effective and economically viable isn't LIKE WWIII, it IS WWIII. It IS the reason that the next wave of tens of millions of people are going die and worse, it's a foreseable, preventable well-predicted event.
It's go time, Mr. President. It's waaaayyy past time to stop trying to diddle Congress's clit just right on this topic. It's time for the Executive to unilaterally declare global warming to be an urgent matter of national security and Executive Action to initiated unilaterally towards alternative fuels, towards conservation, towards binding treaties and against those voices in our society who have declared themselves to be terrorists determined to set off the global warming bomb and kill billions. There is nothing more to talk about , it's time for action- Executive Action. It's time to silence, disable, undermine, discredit, and dismantle those individuals and organizations who are sewing the seeds of doubt. Their careers need to be ended as ignominiously as possible and failing that their voices need to be silenced as discretely as possible. This is war. This is what war is. This is wha
Let's use up all the coal and oil and gas. What could possible go wrong?
Once we use it all up, fossil fuel emissions will be zero.
However, we're driving the car now. And heading into the cliff wall with it.
The problem isn't the car, it's the number of people - as population grows WE all suffer.
i.e less people, less power required, less agriculture, less environmental stresses. The opposite is basically true too.
Everyone who has, or has had multiple children are the root multiplier of the problems we are facing today. To blame any single technology as the problem is disingenuous.
Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.
Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.
Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.
The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment
Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.
Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence. Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.
The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/acid-test-for-oceans-and-marine-life.html?_r=0
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/
http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-species-ecosystems
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/06/local/la-me-acidic-oceans-20121007
http://www.examiner.com/article/lethal-carbon-dioxide-and-ocean-acidification-threaten-marine-life
And you're not getting it. This isn't a slow change. Natural changes occur over millions of years, This has precipitated in just a few human generations. It's looking more and more like an exponential change, because multiple feedbacks are beginning to tilt. Melting permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane and CO2, the continued slash and burn of the tropical forests around the world. All these sinks are breaking at the same time because we failed to address the problem and so now instead of a linear progress of the atmospheric carbon we planned for, we're beginning to see what may in fact be very nonlinear results. Unpredictable results which in a sentence mean results for which we will be unable to plan. The rate of change that "A Natural System" can happily accommodate is about 500 to 5,000 times slower than the rate we're inducing currently. You are perfectly correct that life will succeed and evolve its way out of any mess we make. But first virtually everything dies. Life will go on, it just won't be with anything resembling a human being in the neighborhood.
The only sudden changes we need to bring are the changes surrounding the use of our planet as a toilet for our industry. That should be sudden, and it should begin some time yesterday. Its becoming alarmingly clear that we've already missed the boat to get out of this without taking a beating. Now the outlooks grow increasingly dismal. However, it still doesn't have to be fatal. We are going to lose virtually all the iconic animals you're familiar with in this century. All the big animals of Africa (Elephants, Lions, Cheetahs, Giraffes, Hippo...) and Asia... gone. Virtually all of the higher primates, done. Whales, dolphins, fish, and crustaceans are currently a coin toss, but the prospects are pretty grim. Nothing has happened at this level in millions of years and we are busy cutting the floor out from beneath our own feet. There's an old saying. When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, STOP DIGGING.
Oh, if we really want to invite opposing viewpoints, why not invite some quetchua indian or a central african witch doctor or the guy sitting opposite of you in the bar, if your house's plumbing starts to leak? There are people who are actually doing some research and are occupying themselves with the matter and have seen in motion what they are talking about, and then there are people who just want to sell an opinion. Before you ask "cui bono" (which is a valid question), you have to ask "what happens". If I want to know who profits from a fictional event, I go read some SF or fantasy. In each scientific discussion, I want at first people who know how to read the instruments and how to record events and how to make sense from it. If in a climate discussion, someone appears who really has the instrumental records to dispute the course of events the other site plots them, I am ok with it. If it's just someone calling people names without a record of his own, there is no point of him being there. He literally has no clue what he's talking about.
[A] Royal Charter that Requires Balance
Yes, and what they are required to balance is evidence, they are not required to provide a soap-box for corporate and/or political propaganda, that's Rupert's job, he does it well and dislikes competition. The BBC is supposed to be the antithesis to "tabloid journalism" and everything I see says that it is the closest thing the western world has to that ideal that is also a household name on a global scale. The BBC employees involved in the McAlpine case who failed to correctly weigh the evidence before broadcasting have apologized on numerous occasions and are now out of a job due to their negligence, there was no evidence of malice just plain old incompetence.
Now let's look at who stirring the outrage pot, going by what I see in the Daily Fail, I would say their policy is to reward rather than punish journalistic incompetence. The reason I trust the BBC to be a good approximation to the "truth" is that I have seen it attacked by both sides of politics and subsequently vindicated by history. If McAlpine had been a left wing MP we would be hearing the same conspiratorial bullshit flowing from the other side of the house, left-wing partisans would be just as eager to make the exact same accusations you allude to in your post, and they would do it for the exact same reasons.
The BBC is rotten to the core.
It looks like that because your wearing your partisan goggles which are designed by their manufacturer to filter out uncomfortable ideas and events. What remains is gossip and innuendo, Eleanor Roosevelt described the phenomena much better than I can, she said; Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. The BBC discusses all three and heavily promotes the dissemination of ideas and factual information via subsidiaries such as BBC Earth, in this respect it is superior to every privately owned mass media organization on the planet and has a long history of political independence that most apolitical Brits are rightly proud of.
Disclaimer: Born in Manchester, spent the last 48yrs living in Australia where the equivalent of the BBC is ABC, sometimes called "Aunty" because of a strange but funny Aussie sitcom from the 70's revolving around a character called Aunty Jack.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"The ocean is huge" - I get it now, the ocean is too big to fail, right?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is what you said:
In fact, about 30-50% of marine invertebrate species (and most calcareous species) went extinct at K-Pg 65my ago, but only about 10% of bony fish went extinct and all mammalian lineages survived; so much for "everything above" going extinct. The globe was free of ice caps during the entire Paleocene and Eocene (65my to 34my ago) and Atmospheric carbon was as high as 2000ppm (Pearson and Palmer, Nature 406, 2000). So, your statements are demonstrably complete nonsense.
As for "climate change denialists", I don't know why you brought that up. As far as I'm concerned, anthropogenic climate change is well established.
Well... yes and no. It is true that a warm fluid - be it the ocean or Coca-Cola - cannot hold as much CO2 as the same fluid when cold. So when a cold fluid that is in equilibrium with the atmosphere warms, a portion of the dissolved gas is given off. But that's not the only thing that is going on. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are also increasing, and on the whole that is what is forcing CO2 concentrations in the ocean. The ocean is far from being saturated with CO2 at any temperature, which means that the concentration of CO2 in the ocean is driven almost entirely by the concentration in the atmosphere. On the whole, these must be in equilibrium with each other, and they are able to do so pretty quickly.