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.
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, 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)
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.
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?
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.
Because this time it will be us making room for the next upcoming species.
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?
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
So...looks like the AC below got it right then, Salvation lies in mud huts, nuts and twigs and organically grown and harvested plant materials for clothing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Well, you're homo sapiens; (or a very close approximation). You can't imagine any reason why we might prefer to keep the world and its climate/biosphere largely as it is now? None at all?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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 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.
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...
It's ok. In millions of years when they burn our oily remains for fuel we'll have our revenge.
Think long term here.
Scared?
It's not a challenge to see who can out-macho the most. There's nothing to be scared of at all. However, I'd rather not share a world with little more than rats and cockroaches (hyperbole, but you get the point).
Big extinctions is why we don't have cool things like this any more http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
The Siberian Traps were supervolcanoes. They paved over an area the size of Europe with molten lava. Nothing today compares.
Because humans also generated religious nutjobs who rather wish death becomes us.
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
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.
Oh to have mod points today.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Never said it was a good thing but the chances are that the extinction event should be lower than the earlier one.
Overall your comments play well but show a real lack of any understanding of evolution, science, and so on.
For example most people that died at Hiroshima died of burns and or the blast effect and not the radiation. It was an air burst so the fallout was limited.
BTW yes I know that you were comments where an attempt to shame and try to show ignorance and I am sure that many found it funny but it was those that are not all that knowledgeable.
I never said that it was a good thing just that life in the sea today should have a higher tolerance to a change on PH than those that died eons ago.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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
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.
Ok, so we slap a huge tax on it and now it's expensive. Result: Most people are now too poor to afford much of anything. Congratulations on massively increasing wealth disparity and lowering standards of living.
Yes, we should ensure that all energy production is forced to internalize its costs so that true economic decisions can be made, no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.
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.
no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.
Is anybody doing that, or even advocating that we do ?
He's calling it an (the most?) important component BECAUSE we can't do anything about it.
Think about it.
Is anybody doing that, or even advocating that we do ?
Most environmental groups are advocating it.
that natural events other than humans are very capable of destroying our environment
Yes, the AC believes we should go back to 90% agriculture societies so we never leave a 25 mile radius of our birth.
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"
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.
Sometimes the appropriate technology is advanced, sometimes moving a pile of dirt into the right place does the job. Here's an example: http://www.earthbagbuilding.co...
Yes, you can retrofit many existing homes to this standard. You can even use sandbag-laying equipment for this purpose. What's in the way are regulations built to suit developers and homeowner's associations built around building and flipping energy-guzzling disposable McMansions - for starters.
The latest methods for building these homes resemble 3D printing and they only need a fraction of the solar panels a regular home does to be completely off-grid. Add rainwater harvesting and composting, and you just cut out the need for energy-guzzling waterworks. Add gardens and greenhouses, and replacing the first 50% of your food consumption from carbon-intensive sources is easy. Moreover, very little portland cement - itself alone responsible for 11% of humanity's CO2 emissions - is needed for this.
The gadget-oriented can still go to town automating the opening and closing of shutters and convective cooling to complete this completely self-sufficient home that could supply most of its occupant's food. Building one of these is a survivalist coup. Building a lot of these is a strategy to turn this crisis around without even touching a nuclear reactor.
I just want to highlight that we can easily bring our consumption down to a level that we can easily scale renewables up to 100% for.
that I expect the entire planet to suffer for generations so I don't have to lift a finger or do anything.
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.
There's no reason why carbon taxes can't be made revenue-neutral, and combined with other tax changes the result can be progressive rather than regressive.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The carbon tax should be set at a rate that offsets any cost the energy producers are externalizing to the rest of us. I think the best choice would be directing the money into energy research (efficiency or clean production), an tax credit would fine in principle but would likely end up mostly going to large corporations, in no case should it go into the general fund. With the rate at that level it shouldn't be excessively burdensome and consumers will make rational choices on how to adapt.
The current best estimate of this cost is $40/ton in 2015 dollars. At a rough estimate this would increase the cost of Gasoline about $0.18 a gallon for an average car. Obviously it would have a variety of follow on effects for energy prices and the price of goods though industry would scramble to implement newly positive NPV projects that increased energy efficiency or switch fuel sources as appropriate so once things settled down it wouldn't really be that big a deal. Perhaps we might all be about 2% worse off compared to now, which sucks but is better than letting things get out of control and then doing crazy things later.
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.
That the remaining 4% of marine life was unusually acid-resistant. So they might do Ok this time too.
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
Yes, and all life is descendent of an unbroken string of lucky breaks. Every single one of our ancestors, going back to the origin of life 4 billion years ago, was able to reproduce at least once to produce each and every organism on earth today. Given this, it is clear that we've been bred for luck. Nothing bad can ever happen to us.
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."