Gee, where are the anti-environmental idiots on this one?
I guess silence is better than admitting the greenies MIGHT have a point?
ArticleResearch in Pacific shows ocean trouble
Acidity rises, oxygen drops, scientists find
By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER
Research fresh off a boat that docked Thursday in Alaska reveals some frightening changes taking place in the Pacific Ocean.
As humans are pumping out more carbon dioxide that is helping to warm the planet, the ocean has been doing yeoman's work to lessen the effects -- but it's taking a toll.
Christopher Sabine, NOAA
Scientists lower 36 bottles used for water sampling from the deck of the Thomas G. Thompson while doing research near the equator.
Over time, the changes could have an impact that ripples through the food chain, from microscopic plants that can't grow right to salmon and whales unable to find enough to eat.
The Pacific is getting warmer and more acidic, while the amount of oxygen and the building blocks for coral and some kinds of plankton are decreasing, according to initial results from scientists with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, the University of Washington and elsewhere.
"There are big changes," said Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for one leg of the research trip, which ultimately traveled from Antarctica to Alaska.
Many of the most interesting results are tied to the ocean becoming increasingly acidic because of its absorption of carbon dioxide.
"You don't have to believe in climate change to believe that this is happening," said Joanie Kleypas, an oceanographer with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a non-profit organization based in Boulder, Colo. "It's pretty much simple thermodynamics."
And it's alarming.
"Acidification is more frightening than a lot of the climate change issues," Kleypas said. That's in part because the process is hard to alter.
"It's a slow-moving ship, and we're all trying to row with toothpicks," she said.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Over the past 200 years, the ocean has absorbed about half of what's been released into the atmosphere.
Sabine and the other researchers found that in the past 15 years, there's been a detectable decline in the ocean's pH, which is a measure of acidity ranging from zero to 14, with zero being most acidic (water is neutral, or pH 7, while seawater is about pH 8).
The pH of the sal er has dropped 0.025 units since the early 1990s. The number seems unremarkable, but the pH scale is exponential, so a one-unit drop is a 10-fold decrease. The new measurement also puts the ocean on track for a dramatic decline by the end of the century.
Plankton -- tiny plants and animals that live in the ocean -- are among the creatures that could be harmed by the change. In addition to the water becoming more acidic, the extra carbon dioxide reduces the amount of chemical compounds used to construct coral and the s s of plankton.
"That's a major issue," said John Guinotte, a marine scientist with the Bellevue-based Marine Conservation Biology Ins ute who studies deep sea corals.
"You're likely looking at serious effects through out the marine food web across the board," he said.
The pole-spanning trip that ended Thursday is part of the Repeat Hydrography project. The most recent trip was aboard the Thomas G. Thompson, a UW-operated vessel, and lasted about three months. Thirty-five scientists from about a dozen universities and government labs participated.
The plan is to survey 19 routes crisscrossing all the world's oceans, then repeat those trips every 10 years to detect trends in ocean conditions. Ocean measurements were taken every 60 miles from the surface to the bottom of the sea.
Researchers from California State University-San Marcos and the University of South Florida towed nets behind the vessel to catch plankton, which they then subjected to acidic conditions on par with what might be experienced in the future.
"They're seeing that the s s of these organisms start to dissolve even while the organism is still living," said Sabine, an oceanographer with NOAA's Seattle lab.
Some of the creatures tested are little snails that are "a major food source for salmon and whales and these larger things and they make a s that is very susceptible to a decrease in pH," he said.
Other experiments show that microscopic plants at the base of the food chain that build protective plates out of calcium carbonate don't grow properly in the acidic water.
"We don't expect to go out and find living organisms with dissolving s s," Sabine said. "We expect to find perhaps a change in where these organisms are thriving or perhaps fewer of them over time."
The ocean scientists expressed an urgency over reducing carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible.
"Anything we can do to slow that rate of change will slow the rate of response in the oceans as well," said Kleypas. "It buys us some time."
For the dumbasses who poo poo all the data on global warming:
Here is some very undeniable effects of burning all those fossil fuels. You might dispute the causality of global warming, but can't dispute the amount of carbon we are putting out and that it increases acidity.
Gee, where are the anti-environmental idiots on this one?
I guess silence is better than admitting the greenies MIGHT have a point?
Theres a lot of validity to this but do you want to know why its completely ignored? Because it doesn't sell newspapers. So, the people who are out there ranting and raving about bigger hurricanes and droughts just ignore it.
Yeah, theres plenty of silence on the subject but not in the place you're looking.
It presages a collapse in the aquatic food chain, with some scary consequenses. I will be dead before most of them come to pass, but I will have to apologize to my grandchildren for things like this. Perhaps my great-grandchildren will be able to fix the things we are ignoring. (sighs)
Right RG, the greenies have a "point" it is called the top of their head,
where it comes to a point.
Heh, that's what I am talkin' about. Thanks.
I was beginning to feel lonely.
Seriously though, ya gotta admit this is something to be a bit concerned about, right?
Yea but then again the ice has melted totally 4 times before in earths history. Before car's and powerplants.
With all the rest of the world now buying cars it really won't matter if Amerikka stop's burning stuff. I still don't know a single democrat that will give up there car?
In case there is confusion - Pick your poison, or pick your enemy.
Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment?
It matters little in the Grand scheme of things.
Overfishing of the worlds fisheries is of much greater concern than this minor increase.
It's something to be monitored, but it's not going to destroy earth.
Overfishing is not more of a concern than the ocean become a huge pool of unlivable acid. A minor increase is all it takes to cause mass extinctions. It matters a lot, but it is definetly being ignored.
The problem I have is that this is a single study, yet they've extrapolated the data over a 250-year range.
I've read a few more dealing with the rising PH levels Travis. I'm too lazy to go find them, but the news has been out there for some time now. I think if peoplewould focus on this aspect of things they'd get somewhere, but everyone wants to proove a damn "Day After Tomorrow" scenario because thats where all the hype is.
This says nothing about temperature. It is all about acidity.
Nah, this isn't quite a doomsday scenario.
BUT
What is going on is that this is climate change at an extremely fast (in geologic terms). Life and ecosystems adjust and adapt, but this pace may be faster than can be adjusted to without a major collapse first.
I have a sneaking su ion that we will see the base of the aquatic food chain severely strained and that will cause worldwide fish stocks to fall.
30 years ago it was supposed to be an ice age and then its global warming.
Why don't alot of us believe this?
The same reason i have reservations about most science speculation. Eggs are bad, no, there good, well they have glucose-amino type 3 phosphate so there bad now, but wait, the tyro-hydroxagte in the yolk counteracts it so there good.
I'm still waiting on my god-damned SARS epidemic.
As I keep saying, this thread isn't about warming, where there is some debate as to the cause.
This is about changes in oceanic acidity, which is quite easily traced to human activity. We are changing the oceans faster than life there seems to be adapting.
We ARE changing environments world-wide, and most of those changes are generally harmful.
What is wrong with trying to limit our environmental impact until we know a LITTLE more about what we are doing to it?
The chance that we end up seriously harming our ability to feed ourselves is an unknown, but the consequences of this happening are severe.
We accept slightly lower disposable incomes so that we can pay for fire and disaster insurance. Why then should we not pay for the equivilant of "extinction" insurance?
As for pandemics, it is a question of when, not if.
It is a bit like earthquakes, in that they are unavoidable. I say we do some prudent preparation for both...
As long as "good job" Brownie isn't in charge of the response...
I find it funny that the first thing Bush and Co. think about when trying to figure out how to solve problems is to relax environmental standards, and by funny I mean sad.
Here is yet another short-sighted policy that so aptly demonstrates the sheer incompetance of this administration.
The administration wants to increase pollution that will inevitably cause some damage to health of citizens.
Q: What segment of this country has the least health insurance?
A: The poor
Q: What segment of the country does this administration think it is helping by relaxing pollution standards to presumedly lower the price of gasoline?
A: The poor
Either this is incompetant, or it is yet another rank give-away to Bush's buddies.
Probably a bit of both. GRRRRRR.....
^^Rack That!^^
You know RG, you need to take trip overseas to Europe or
Middle East. You want pollution, there you have it in spades.
And these are the same people who preach to us about
cleaning up the environment. They had no pollution controls
on there vehicles until just a few years ago. London did
forbid the use of coal burning in homes some years ago,
because of the smog problem and it did help clear the air
of smog. But will you at least admit some of the problems
we have with energy supplies does rest with those who
have prevented companies drilling for oil off our coast and
building refineries in the US. Oil companies have done a
very good job of controlling their pollution problems and
have more stuff in the pipeline. But the environmentalist
have this thing about ruining the world by letting someone
do anything with any of our resources. And yet they will
be the first to about have to pay through the nose
for gasoline. I am sure an alternative fuel will be developed
one of these days. But it is going to take a major
undertaking to build infracture to handle any of it and
some major breakthroughs to find a plentiful, cheap source
for the fuel. Hydrogen would be the ideal solution, but it
takes more energy to produce than it gives back and
we have no way to handle it to deliver to the consumer.
Some think that fuel cells are the wave of the future,
maybe. But what are they talking about right now, using
oil as the source of energy for the fuel cells. Go figure.
You want to about Gasoline prices, then about Bush lowering standards so more refineries can be built and existing refineries can refine oil into gasoline that couldn't before.
What a ing trip you are.
Random Guy... these guys dont care... I never thought that conservatives simply didnt care before this forum. Now i have an inside perspecitve into the minds of those nuckle dragging, red neck, conservatives i have always heard about but never seen. Vashner has tought me so much about how stupid most americans really are.
I never about gasoline prices. I about dumb policies that are more political manuevering than effective. Look and you will not find any post where I complain that gasoline is too expensive. It is what it is, and I understand enough economics to know why.
The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.
Lastly:
New refineries are a bad idea, in the US or anywhere. Any short-term economic benefit you might get out of reducing the cost of gasoline, is more than out-weighed by the extremely toxic pollution that results from even the clean refineries in the US.
If you want more refineries, then you need to start drinking the groundwater downstream from them. The long term costs of these ecological monstrosities is not to be underestimated in terms of damage to the only national resource that matters in the long run: people.
I will make you a deal.
On my next trip to houston, I will randomly (heh) sample some well water from nearby refineries, and fill up 100 large water containers of 5 gallons each with this water. I will drop these containers off at your house, and if you drink all 500 gallons at one glass per meal, I will then advocate the relaxation of environmental standards to enable new refineries being built.
I may be a " ing trip", but I *know* that you will not take me up on this, because we both know how polluting they are.
I am reminded of a former friend with epilepsy. He is (SURPISE!) from a small town downstream from some sort of refining facility. He has epilepsy, as so a freakishly large percentage of his high-school classmates. The rest of the town also has an abnormally high percentage of people with brain cancers.
This is simple anecdotal evidence with no scientific support, but I don't need to spend millions of dollars to know that I would never take the above challenge.
I am 100% serious about my offer of getting the water for you. Let me know where to drop it off, and I will spend my weekends getting the water to poison you.
When you decline my offer be sure to add the word "hypocrite" to your siggy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)