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.
... 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.
I'm not understanding: is this domesday?
No it's Dunes day.
At this point, whatever is gonna happen, is gonna happen.
Good thing the rapture is any moment now.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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?
Because this time it will be us making room for the next upcoming species.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I used to worry about anthropological climate change but then I got a Facebook account and learned that GMO foods are going to kill me.
(That's another issue where public opinion is at complete odds with the scientific consensus, incidentally)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Exactly; in the future, we'll still have horseshoe crabs, sharks, and cockroaches. No mammals (including humans), though.
I do think one of our last acts as a species should be to build a giant monument on the Moon (where it won't be eroded by the weather) to explain what happened to us, in case any aliens come by, so they can see how we did ourselves in with our stupidity.
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.
More like your DNA is modified by what you eat
That's not how it works.
It means that in the present we have to wade through mountains of denier fud and be confronted by minions of anti climate change trolls whenever trying to have a discussion about the changing climate
In the future we will only have to suffer the pangs of coulda, woulda and shoulda
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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
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.