Slashdot Mirror
The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct
merbs writes: The biggest extinction event in planetary history was driven by the rapid acidification of our oceans, a new study concludes (abstract). So much carbon was released into the atmosphere, and the oceans absorbed so much of it so quickly, that marine life simply died off, from the bottom of the food chain up. That doesn't bode well for the present, given the similarly disturbing rate that our seas are acidifying right now. A team led by University of Edinburgh researchers collected rocks in the United Arab Emirates that were on the seafloor hundreds of millions of years ago, and used the boron isotopes found within to model the changing levels of acidification in our prehistoric oceans. They now believe that a series of gigantic volcanic eruptions in the Siberian Trap spewed a great fountain of carbon into the atmosphere over a period of tens of thousands of years. This was the first phase of the extinction event, in which terrestrial life began to die out.
I'm not understanding: is this domesday?
... they're not becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline and are slowly heading towards neutral. Not that that distinction matters to the plankton.
Personally I think this issue and other other pressures on ocean life from man such as pollution and plastic debris is far more pressing in the snort term than global warming but hardly anyone - even the enviromentalists - makes a big deal about it.
It's true!
Volcanoes release quite a bit of sulfur(oxides) which contribute quite a bit to acidification. Why is this not mentioned?
Because acidification happens faster and faster, while there is no special volcanic activity. In other terms, the reason of this accelerated acidification does not come from volcanoes.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Because we've always had volcanoes and the oceans didn't acidify as a result?
Because no super-volcanoes have gone off in the last century (we'd have noticed!) and that's not what's driving the rapid carbon increase in the atmosphere.
So, this acidic extinction event in the distant past was one of the steps that occurred in the lead up to the evolution of homo sapiens, who nevertheless went on to invent the plow, the novel, the steam engine, the city, radio, television, the airplane, the internet, and Slashdot, right? Why should I be scared of anything?
So, where are all the environmentalists demanding we build integral fast reactors as fast as we can? We have a huge 300,000 year light-water-reactor waste problem, a huge CO2 problem, and only one source of energy that can satisfy all the demand that humans have and will have as the other billions are lifted out of poverty. There's only one known technology that cleans up the mess and provides the power.
But how does solving the problem concentrate power in the hands of governments, right? Big shocker that it was Al Gore who lead the charge to cancel the IFR program. Total coincidence. That's why Obama won't even take Branson's calls about building them now, on his dime.
Just tax carbon and the oceans will be saved, amirite?
The silver lining is that China will build them and eventually America will be forced by the harsh realities of economics to buy them from the Chinese manufacturers, as China replaces the US as the center of industrialization. Unless Americans start refusing to be controlled by sociopaths first.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That means that all sea life is descended from sea life that survived the change in the Ocean.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Too bad it doesn't start with the top of the food chain down...
I notice TFA doesn't mention competing theories, like the ocean acidificaiton is being caused by the natural cycle of sunspots. This is a serious theory, put forth by me the other day when I was looking up at the sun and thinking that no one probably has done any research into how sunspots could affect ocean acidity. This is just anther example of the mainstream media not giving equal time to competing theories! Instead, they just focus on those that come from scientists doing studies!
And if it's not sunspots, it's probably volcanoes or something. I'll figure that out if someone disproved my first theory.
Do I understand this right, if acidification continues at the current rate for a few tens of thousands of years, we're fscked?
We'll have to survive that long as a species first, at a technology level that produces enough carbon dioxide to keep up that acidification.
I've heard say that's not very likely.
And with this, we learn the real solution to the Fermi paradox - Not warlike tendencies among apex predators capable of becoming sentient, not resource starvation before getting off-planet (though close to that), not Reapers or something similar, not the actual absence of habitable planets - But simply the ease of developing ecosystem-destroying technology vs the complexity of understanding the chaotic interdependence of planet-sized ecosystems.
We had a nice run, humanity. Maybe the Blattarian race that succeeds us in a few million years will do better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event
As originally proposed by a team of scientists led by Luis Alvarez, it is now generally believed that the K–Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.
Triassic–Jurassic extinction event
Gradual climate change, sea-level fluctuations or a pulse of oceanic acidification[6] during the late Triassic reached a tipping point. However, this does not explain the suddenness of the extinctions in the marine realm.
Asteroid impact, but so far no impact crater of sufficient size has been dated to coincide with the Triassic–Jurassic boundary.
Permian–Triassic extinction event (the one claimed here)
There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event.
Late Devonian extinction
The causes of these extinctions are unclear. Leading theories include changes in sea level and ocean anoxia, possibly triggered by global cooling or oceanic volcanism. The impact of a comet or another extraterrestrial body has also been suggested.
Ordovician–Silurian extinction events
The immediate cause of extinction[which?] appears to have been the movement of Gondwana into the south polar region. This led to global cooling, glaciation and consequent sea level fall. The falling sea level disrupted or eliminated habitats along the continental shelves.
TL:DR -> Maybe some major extinction events were caused by climate shifts, but all were theorized to be gradual shifts, not sudden. The sudden extinction events are generally due to volcanic or impact events.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Every time this comes up, either a fast-breeder or a thorium crackpot comes out of their holes.
What if we just stop wasting resources?
Take transport: why does it take > 30 kW to move around one ~80kg bag of flesh&bones? Because it's too cheap. Why don't we insulate homes more? Because the alternative is too cheap. Ad nauseam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[7][11][12][13] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include one or more large bolide impact events, massive volcanism, coal or gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[14] and a runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor due to methane clathrate dissociation or methane-producing microbes known as methanogens;[15] possible contributing gradual changes include sea-level change, increasing anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.
Really, the PT event was the perfect storm of extinction events.
To be pedantic: 96% of marine _species_ went extinct.
We've seen 99% of all of some species disappear, and the species come back. Homo Sapiens was brought down to a 10,000 person bottleneck once, but bounced back. We've had 90%+ of some fish populations disappear with almost no complete species disappearing. But the great extinctions losing 96 % of species is another level entirely.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
The only more beneficial thing than a lot of individual deaths is a mass extinction: so much useless stuff recycled!
Do we take the big gun, or the good package?
RIP John Ritter.
You will be dead before it matters assuming it's not more fear mongering which it is but assuming it's not.
Here's to having built-in expiration dates! Thank you GOD!
Obviously a import component of acidification was ignored to push an agenda.
As long as we're just comparing the acidification and the rate of acidification, does it really matter if it was caused by different mechanisms ?
The article doesn't claim that the rates of acidification are the same, just that we are releasing carbon at a similar rate.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast
Wait - when this 96% extinction happened, where the oceans acidic as they are now, or were they more acidic? As far as I can tell the substance of the article only talks rate of change of acidity, not the actual pH.
So, okay, the ocean pH is going down at a high rate. But that doesn't mean we're looking at the same kind of circumstances as occured 252m years ago.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's not the fish and sea creatures dying thats the problem, its the gas their decay produces that killed most of the animals on shore too, 70% of vertebrates species died out.
So its death of homo-sapiens they're worried about, not the dead fish.
But hey, the plastics also a pain, well done for that disinformation, I'm sure your great grand kids would have been proud of you.
Or you could spend a few minutes on Google and discover that all volcanic emissions amount for less than 2% of global CO2 output. Calling that an important component is pretty silly, especially as we can't do anything about volcanoes. Who's pushing an agenda now?
The article doesn't claim that the rates of acidification are the same, just that we are releasing carbon at a similar rate.
The actual research that the article was based on is a pH reconstruction, not carbon concentration.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
"Well, (burp), as long as they's still cows and pigs and chickens, I'm good!"
We'll start thinking about doing something when we can't breathe..
I believe that ocean acidification is one of the planet's greatest problems. But I am ignorant about the timing.
The article is about the Permian Extinction. It took place 250 million years ago. When geologists or biologists say that something happened "fast" they might be talking about 10 years, or ten thousand years, or ten million years. That matters. If the scale is long then I don't care because we have *no idea* what life will be like then.
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
But... but... but.... Jeff Goldblum said that life always finds a way11!!!!111!$#!4141!!!
Sound silly? That's how silly you sound.
Whether it's "doomsday" depends on what you're going to do about it.
Screaming about how it's all hysterics and not doing anything about the problem you've been told about by the expert makes it "Yes, it's doomsday". Doing something about it means "No, it's not doomsday".
The Siberian Traps were supervolcanoes. They paved over an area the size of Europe with molten lava. Nothing today compares.
To be pedantic: 96% of marine _species_ went extinct.
To actually be pedantic: 96% of macroscopic marine eukaryotes :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't know how much I'd classify myself an environmentalist, but I do care about what's happening and think we should do something. I'm all for building new reactors to replace & reduce fossil fuel consumption. Put a candidate on my ballot who actually wants to do it (and who doesn't want batshit crazy social policies).
You can do something called "accounting", where you sum up the amounts of CO2 coming from different sources.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
..."over tens of thousands of years".
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Current volcanoes are putting out carbon as well.
If you have questions, then you should find credible sources with information. You can follow the references to actual peer reviewed original research on the subject. If you really want to understand, then you'll need to do a graduate degree on it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
We are about to solve the fermi paradox, at least for ourselves : due to a sizeable amount of ocean species extinguished, and arable fields getting much less productive due to climate change moving the temperate zones, we'll make sure our probability to go into energy intensive space exploration will be much lower maybe zero.
Most of each species means they can bounce back. Most of all species means they are gone and cannot come back. Huge difference, and it takes a long time to recover from the second one.
Most of the 4% that was left, were Canadian Geese.
How many giant volcanic eruptions have we been experiencing in the past century or so. Oh none right. Volcanic eruptions are about 2% of CO2 emissions currently.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I am wondering how Dumping Iron Sluphate in the Ocean would directly affect the PH of the ocean. Yea, I realize the UN wasn't too happy about it. Yes, I realize that the ocans PH should decrease as C20 is captured.
...You are wrong in saying this is not becoming acidic. That is what "going toward acidic" is. It doesn't start "becoming acidic" when you add acid to an alkaline ONLY AFTER it becomes neutral pH.
PLEASE stop pretending you know chemistry when you demonstrated with your preening idiocy that you haven't a clue, you've just heard someone else who was clueless say it and tell you it's right. Since it "feels right" to a denier like yourself, and you're constitutionally incapable of verifying any "fact" that you feel proves AGW wrong, you just took their word for it. Nullus in verba doesn't mean you only take actual experts' opinion as needing verification (which you're too lazy to do, which means you have the "happy benefit" of always being "justified" in disbelieving them while not having to do any work). Take the things you LIKE to be true as needing verification.
Yeah, right... And even if that is half true, we are a species that ought to be smart enough to recognize that we contribute and we need to adjust. This cycle argument is only useful to the daft and the perennial procrastinators.
That means that all sea life is descended from sea life that survived the change in the Ocean.
How many times do I have to tell you that the average Slashdotter's is not smarter than average?
Here's proof.
I think nuclear power CAN be safe, and CAN be a net environmental benefit (meaning it causes far less environmental damage than equivalent gas or coal operations), however, I'm not sure that it can be those two things AND be economical at the same time.
It's hard for a fission plant to pay for the interest on the capital used to build it selling electricity at rates competitive with alternatives. The way fusion is looking, if it EVER works, it might be in the same boat as fission, economically, except worse.
If a really good battery comes along that makes storing solar/wind energy cheap enough, the economic case for fission/fusion power will be completely wiped out.
--PM
won't be the thing that kills off a large number of species on the planet. It will be humans killing all the life in the ocean and the ocean having nothing in it to temper the carbon absorption. Animals are part of the carbon cycle. Without them it runs amok.
Problems with marine life in the ocean have nothing to do with the endless dumping of radiation by Fukushima being spread around the planet by ocean currents, or the Gulf Oil spill which lasted months and was "cleaned up" by dumping chemicals into the water that use up all of the oxygen and kill everything in the area. No, it's caused by CO2 and we need carbon taxes on everything, and a carbon tax exchange system that lines the pockets of people like Al Gore to solve the problem.
Because we've always had volcanoes and the oceans didn't acidify as a result?
I suggest reading the summary before posting! Tim S.
The pH of the ocean at that time went to about 7.3, the amount of carbon it would take to even go to 8.0 from present levels is staggering and would take centuries even if we went to pure coal power. This nonsense doom prediction will not happen.
Volcanoes are part of a balanced system that's existed in pretty much the same state for the past few 10,000 years. Volcanic activity has not increased yet oceans are acidifying at an unusual rate (given no increase in pretty much anything besides human generated CO2 emissions). You'll just have to come to the logical conclusion on your own.
Green has become the new brown, the color of fascism. When will the people of earth rise up and demand both their science and their liberty back?
He's calling it an (the most?) important component BECAUSE we can't do anything about it.
Think about it.
Yellowstone would. Fortunately, it's not currently erupting. Unfortunately, in geological terms it's due 'any day now'.
The post is using alarming words and yet the paper does not directly link the present and past.
that natural events other than humans are very capable of destroying our environment
Billy: When is this "Snake" act supposed to occur?
Professor Pacoli: Well, if this is the five and this is the one... [mumbling in Italian] ...every 5,000 years.
Billy: So I've got some time.
I thought all sea-life was supposed to be reduced by a only third?
So when will it turn red?
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Nature will find a way to harmonize and create balance. The human race is due for an epic smackdown. Once, your food supply is affected, invariably that will lead to war of resources (violent or otherwise, but it is usually violence) and then the human population depletes at a furious rate. At which point, teh Earth solves its cancer problem. Of course, I can't help myself, but our fox reading friends will invariably blame everone but themselves. Or maybe "God did it"
If 96% of ocean life went extinct you wouldn't notice.
A bunch of plants and animals would die, and their net O / CO2 differences would cancel each other out. Not that it would matter if they didn't anyway.
Different life would come to inhabit the oceans. Wouldn't bother me.
Just what is it that is feared?
Ocean pH changes often and quickly, at some locations it already changes to levels which some people are worried the ocean might reach.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983.g003
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028983
that I expect the entire planet to suffer for generations so I don't have to lift a finger or do anything.
See, its natural for the oceans to acidify! -All these global warming hippies are just trying to cause problems.
"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe"
Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.
In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.
Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?
Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change
In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).
It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.
Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.
Refs:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
https://books.google.ca/books?...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Need Mercedes parts ?
Fuckem, noone eats fish anyway! /s
Just kidding - chemistry is chemistry. We are stupid and doomed. USA! USA! USA!
Since when "using resources more efficiently" equals "mud huts, nuts and twigs"? Do you have an agenda (selling energy) or are you just *that* stupid?
that suxx i mean domain name that.sucks
The carbon release required to drive the observed acidification event must have occurred at a rate comparable with the current anthropogenic perturbation but exceeds it in expected magnitude. Specifically, the required model perturbation of 24,000 PgC exceeds the ~5000 PgC of conventional fossil fuels and is at the upper end of the range of estimates of unconventional fossil fuels (such as methane hydrates).
So basically, what they're saying is that for humanity to do this, we'd need to continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate for 10,000 years, but we'd actually run out after about 2,000 years.
We don't have the option of doing this much damage if we wanted to.
It doesn't matter what scientist say, and what politicians try to do about it. The real cause of pollution, destruction of our environments, global warming, etc... is not the obvious cause like burning fossil fuel, or chopping the rain forests or pumping waste into our rivers. They are also symptoms just like the pollution itself.
The real cause is the human behaviour. The developed world has no respect toward the nature. They just think everything in nature is up for grabs, ready to be exploited for their own profit. Not every human population acts the same way. There are many cultures who live in harmony with nature. Who respect not only the animals, but also the plants and the earth itself.
There is only one cause for this difference and that is our cultural heritage that has formed our individual behaviour towards the environment. And that cultural heritage is the Judaic/Christian faith. The earth is a gift from God, and everything is personal possession for the human species who is free to do whatever he wants with all natural resources and all living creatures, as long as he worships is God, and follows the biblical laws. The 'she' is just a lesser creature that is also possession of the 'he'. Our culture is so ingrained by this faith that all the social problems we face today has everything to do with this faith. There is not one single problem that has a different cause.
Name one social or economic problem and you can trace it back to faith. This problem is not only limited to the Judaic/Christian faith, the Muslim faith has the same problem. Every single problem in the middle east and Africa can be traced back to faith. Many woman get raped in Africa for example. This can easily be traced back to faith: the woman is a lesser creature then the man, she is nothing more then his personal possession.
Woman have earned less than man for the same work well up into the 21th century. Woman get less chances than man. The reason is simple: faith.
Human destroys the natural environment for his own profit: faith
The middle east is a complete mess: faith
But what do we as humans do? We still defend faith, we still worship freedom of religion, we still point to all the good that comes from faith. But we are blind to all the bad things that happen because of the same faith.
Even people who believe that global warming if for real don't look at themselves. They look at politicians and the big business. They will not cut back on their personal footprint. It is not me, it are the others! This is because they have learned to act the way they do. They don't do anything wrong: they don't kill, they don't steal, they don't ... As long as we don't stand up against those faith systems that emerged when there were only like 50-60 million people on the earth, and create a new 'holy scripture' that is written for this world with 7 billion people, than every attempt to change anything will be a drop in the acidic err less alkaline ocean.
But, but so many people find peace in religion, we can't take that away from them, now can we? Well, if we really want to change the individual mindset towards nature from 'it is all their for free and for our own pleasure and profit' to 'we have to live in harmony with our environment and should always take and give back and be respectful to all life', than the ancient faith system has to go. It is possible, the human has given up cannibalism and human sacrifice, we don't do a rain dances any more, and don't read the organs of animals any more to predict the future. Why wouldn't we be able to change our current faith system? It would at least solve many, many problems we currently face (and probably will introduce other problems) and start to let the earth recover from our misdoings. We don't even need to do it ourselves, we can just let nature do it's thing and nature will eventually recover.
How is 2% that you can't do anything about in any way more important than the 98% that you could but don't do anything about?
So if I take this article at face value acidification of the ocean causes mass extinction in the middle of continents. Extinctions include land based reptiles, amphibians, herbivores, insects, and vertebrates.
Dang, that is one acidic ocean!
Or maybe, just maybe, someone cherry picks half a fact to justify something with a totally unrelated cause. Millions of years before the first primate existed, humans were causing the end of the world. The bigger the lie the easier it is to believe (Joseph Goebbels 1941), just sayin.
Fake science to justify a crusade. Nothing to see here, please move along.
There was the Siberian traps erupting for 10,000 years. A bunch of volcanos spewing lava over an area the size of Texas for ten thousand years is going to have a significant effect. Here's a hint: we *have not* had the Siberian traps spewing lava since 8000 BC. NOT the same.
ZOMG BE AFRAID OMG OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!
I remember very distinctly a claim when I was in grade school that all of the planet's polar life would be extinct by the year 2000. Hmm... If you leftists stopped making hyperbolic claims about the environment at every opportunity, people would be more likely to actually believe you. Haven't you heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? Oh, I forgot. Wolves went extinct in 2000... wait, they didn't? Oh, gotcha. Exaggerated predictions by excitable media and "activists" aren't always correct or truthful? I never would have guessed.
That the remaining 4% of marine life was unusually acid-resistant. So they might do Ok this time too.
Some people question whether ocean acidification is caused by scientific fraud.. I have no idea about the data. Maybe the article is completely bogus. I'm just pointing out that there are still scientists who seem to disagree with the mainstream alarmist view. Also see this picture from the same source.
RTFA. There isn't enough fossil fuel in the world to equal the effects of the that extinction. The rate of acidification has oi taper off soon. Another false doomsday headline masking a contrary scientific finding.
Humans have already destroyed Earth;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Casteism
IF it is true that 96 percent of marine life died in the past... it doesn't bode well for the evolution theory either.
Someone please explain the Evolution of marine life if it all went extinct.
Last time I checked the definition of extinct meant permanently gone.
From nothing comes nothing ;-)
Um.
Are you reading the same thread?
It's not. But politically, he's calling it the most important because it's something humans can't do anything about. If fits in perfectly with the right's narrative on AGW. By making the problem out of their control, they can claim anyone wanting to do anything about it just wants to "kill jobs" or "redistribute wealth."