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.

28 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. Strictly speaking... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "... they're not becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline..." is like saying "you're tires aren't going flat, they're just becoming less inflated."

      And the explanation for why acidity (or as you so euphemistically put it, "de-alkalinizing") is because of the amount of carbon being absorbed through, and you guessed it, CO2 emissions, the same thing causing AGW. They are aspects of the same problem, with, and wait for it, the same solution; reducing CO2 emissions.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Strictly speaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Everything is a huge deal to environmentalists. That's why you cannot listen to anything they say. If we solved every 'problem' on their bitch list today, tomorrow they'd have a new one twice as long. There's always a new problem to be solved. I consider it a form of mental illness. When you distill it down to its essence, the problem environmentalists have is that they exist and they affect the world around them. I guess they'd rather not exist, because it's impossible for any living being to not affect their environment. Their assumptions include change is always bad, and that humans are not a part of nature. We should round them all up and put them on an island with strict instructions not to do anything to disturb their pristine 'environment', see how they like it.

    3. Re:Strictly speaking... by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which probably means no major extinction event in the near future....

      I think the extinctions are more related to the rate of change than to absolute numbers. Absolute numbers for CO2 have been much higher, and there was plenty of life at those times. The problem is that it takes a different form of life, adapted to the different environment. Quick changes could possibly overwhelm the rate in which species can adapt.

    4. Re:Strictly speaking... by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They might do better to focus on issues like this. "You are killing the earth's food supply, including your own" probably goes farther with more people than "It will get a degree or two hotter over the next 100 years".

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:Strictly speaking... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's always a new problem to be solved.

      I think that describes life in general, don't you think?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:Strictly speaking... by Holi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      " First it was global cooling"

      No it never was. It was a non-scientific idea that had little to no support in the scientific community. But the fact you bring it up when I am sure you knew this makes the rwest of your comment suspect.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of quoting journalists, you wouldn't mind, oh I don't fucking know, actually looking at what the scientists say.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Strictly speaking... by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While technically true that anything becoming less alkaline is becoming more acidic, it is deceptive wording chosen to cause alarm.
      It should also be pointed out that the oceans are not of a uniform pH and can vary from 7.5 to 8.4. Saltwater aquariums can similarly vary in pH in about the same range. To say that the last time the pH was this low all the life died out in the oceans is disingenuous. There are already parts of the ocean where the pH is much lower than 8.1 and life continues to thrive in those parts of the ocean, and parts of the ocean where the pH is much higher as well.
      Overfishing is a more likely cause of doom than the lowered alkalinity.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "ice age" theory never had much support as I recall, and was more an artifact of the cesspool that is science journalism.

      Do you have an actual objection to the science, or just yet another tired rhetorical objection "Oh you see, a few scientists were wrong, therefore all scientists are wrong..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Strictly speaking... by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

      http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi...

    11. Re:Strictly speaking... by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you put your ego to one side briefly, and realise that the scientists who study these ecosystems might know more than you do, you can stop trotting out your personal opinions as if they carry the same weight as the peer-reviewed findings. They've thought of everything you just mentioned. To assume you can disrupt or overthrow the entire body of understanding on a subject in a clumsily-worded, vague slashdot post speaks more of your arrogance than any failings in the scientific community.

    12. Re:Strictly speaking... by Troed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm less concerned about the number and more concerned about the rate. normally these kinds changes take several magnitudes longer.

      We have no idea whether the rate is unusual. There are no proxies with that resolution available.

      (But why let science stand in the way of a good scare story?)

    13. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you in fact have no issue with the scientists, but with other non-experts.

      Except for your last sentence, which indicates you are denier playing yet another tired rhetorical trick and imagining that it somehow just wipes out all the science.

      You just don't like bad news, and are too fucking infantile to get a grip

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see why the willfully ignorant need be treated with respect.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Strictly speaking... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Willfully ignorant? Fuck you. I accept the underlying premise that the climate is changing and mankind's activities are contributing a non-zero amount to that change. Pointing out the fact that the climate has changed before does not make me a denier and it speaks volumes about you that you feel the need to attack someone who largely agrees with you because they don't completely toe the party line.

      Incidentally, the only things I don't accept are the doomsday rhetoric about the consequences of climate change and the proposed "solutions" that will ultimately accomplish nothing. Well, that's not entirely true, they'll massively increase energy bills in the first world while simultaneously halting development in the third world. But hey, who gives a shit, we've got ours, fuck all of those poor brown people.

      Whether you're willing to admit it or not, energy is civilization and massively increasing the cost thereof condemns billions of people to remain in poverty. You'd do better to spend those countless trillions on preparing humanity for the change that we couldn't stop even if we axed all carbon emissions tomorrow.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Strictly speaking... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They've been saying that for as long as science has been promising us nuclear fusion. It's been 50 years away for my entire lifespan; I'm now in my 30s and don't see it happening before I'm 50. Do you?

      I would love to see the day when technology provides a solution to this problem and am optimistic enough to believe that it will happen before I die. That said, we're forced to deal with reality as it exists today, and the sad truth of the matter is that you can't replace carbon based sources of energy today, tomorrow, or even in the next few decades. That would hold true even if we launched a crash nuclear power program, which is something that we should do, alongside solar, wind, hydro, and yes, even carbon for those applications (aerospace, shipping, agriculture) where no other viable technology exists.

      I wish the people who think this is the greatest threat facing humanity would at least acknowledge the reality of the situation, which is that carbon emissions are going to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. The third world is not going to meekly accept their current lot in life, they're going to develop regardless of what the West does. What do you propose to do about that? Go to war to stop them? Unless you've got plans for Mr. Fusion in your basement that's what you would have to do.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Strictly speaking... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh my goodness, there's a price to pay for environmental damage! WAaahhh! That's not fair!!!!

      And the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are not that onerous.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Re:No mention of sulfur by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because we've always had volcanoes and the oceans didn't acidify as a result?

  3. Re:Maybe not as scary you might think by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And hey, we shouldn't worry about meteor impacts because all life on Earth now is descending from life that survived the one that killed the dinosaurs! Bring on the meteors! Also, did you know that many people in Japan are descending from people that survived having nuclear bombs dropped on them, thus rendering them immune to radiation?

  4. Re:Which brings us to now by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this time it will be us making room for the next upcoming species.

  5. Either fast breeder or thorium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Great, Let's Build IFR's by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, where are all the environmentalists demanding we build integral fast reactors as fast as we can?

    There are actually quite a number of environmentalists who have suggested that we should use nuclear power in order to get off of fossil fuels. I suspect a lot of the problem is political. There are still a lot of people with an irrational fear of nuclear power on one side of the issue, and on the other side there are people who support fossil fuels just to say "fuck you" to "the hippies". And that's before you even get into the lobbying and propaganda from fossil fuel producers.

    It's an uphill battle to do anything, even if it completely makes sense and has broad support, because there are always ignorant people and entrenched interests.

  7. What is the time resolution of our knowledge? by cohomology · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:It's been nice knowing y'all by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the acidification primarily effects animals with shells or bones. So soon you can go for a swim and there will be nothing but jellyfish. No sharks though.

  9. Re:It's been nice knowing y'all by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I agree with AC. I can't figure out which one of the the thousands of manmade global catastrophes is going to be the one to take us out any moment now.
    That's okay, though, I'm sure that 5,000 years ago they weren't able to figure out which manmade global catastrophe was going to take them out any minute now either.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  10. Re:It's been nice knowing y'all by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a large difference between surviving and being fine

    Sure, we could lose much of our arable land, drinking water and the oceans as a primary source of food and a small percentage of the population can still survive

    But that is a long way from 'fine' since we would lose many of the societal advances of the past thousand years

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  11. Re:It's been nice knowing y'all by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    F still equals m * a at the scale it was originally claimed to have been tested. Sure, for dealing with sub-atomic crap we needed somebody to come along and figure out that E equals mc^2. True enough. But F=ma is only "wrong" when used outside the original context. For human-scale objects, F=MA is still correct, and a more useful equation than E=mc^2.

    Things don't become wrong later. When you think that happens, it means you misunderstood the claims. Not that there were problems in the claims.