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.

23 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 Hardhead_7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ocean acidification is a huge deal to environmentalists - I'm not sure where you're getting your information. And as it's driven by the same thing that causes Global Warming, dealing with carbon in the atmosphere is a twofer.

    2. Re:Strictly speaking... by itzly · · Score: 5, Informative

      they're not becoming acidic, they're becoming less alkaline

      More acidic is the same as less alkaline. It's an increase in protons.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Strictly speaking... by Bengie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Earth has gone through many phases and transitions have been deadly. What do you mean by "historical"? Which historical phase are we talking about? Around 20mil years ago, CO2s plummeted and was around 600ppm. For the past nearly 1mil years CO2 has remained under mostly 250ppm with brief peaks around 300ppm. In less than 100 years, we have gone from 300ppm to 400ppm, which typically took thousands of years. It is one of the quickest increases in CO2 concentrations for the past hundred million years or so, which the other ones were caused by catastrophic events.

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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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...

    8. Re:Strictly speaking... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      You may not have RTFA, but this entire story is driven by what a "journalist" wrote, not a scientist. Journalists drive these stories, they drive the alarmism.

      So in a story written by a journalist, not a scientist, it's perfectly acceptable to quote journalists.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
  2. Re:No mention of sulfur by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...
  3. 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?

  4. Great, Let's Build IFR's by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)
    1. 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.

  5. What About Competing Theories by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. Is headline overstating it? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  9. Re:Which brings us to now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's ok. In millions of years when they burn our oily remains for fuel we'll have our revenge.

    Think long term here.

  10. 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.

  11. Re:It's been nice knowing y'all by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  12. Re:Either fast breeder or thorium by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.