Global Warming Also Affecting The Earth's Oceans

Posted on Thursday, July 14 at 09:02 by Vera Gottlieb
Professor John Raven, chair of the Royal Society working group on ocean acidification said: "Along with climate change, the rising acidity of our oceans is yet another reason for us to be concerned about the carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere. Our world leaders meeting at next week's G8 summit must commit to taking decisive and significant action to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Failure to do so may mean that there is no place in the oceans of the future for many of the species and ecosystems that we know today. " Sea creatures such as corals, shell fish, sea urchins and star fish are likely to suffer the most because higher levels of acidity makes it difficult for them to form and maintain their hard calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. For example, even under the 'low' predictions for future carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, the combined effects of climate change and ocean acidification mean that corals could be rare on tropical and subtropical reefs, such as the Great Barrier Reef, by 2050. This will have major ramifications for hundreds of thousands of other species that dwell in the reefs as well as for the people that depend upon them, both for food and to help to protect coastal areas from, for example, tsunamis. The report says that changes in ocean chemistry, caused by ocean acidification, means that we can predict that some creatures in the Antarctic Ocean will be among the first to be affected. For example, some types of plankton - a major source of food for fish and other animals - may be unable to make their calcium carbonate shells by 2100. This may have significant consequences for entire food webs in the region, although the overall impact of this is unclear. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide may also make it harder for some larger marine animals to obtain oxygen from seawater. For example, squid are particularly sensitive because they move by jet propulsion - this is very energy-demanding and requires a good supply of oxygen. Professor Raven said: "Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans. And the rate change we are seeing to the ocean's chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life - which is already under threat from climate change - can adapt to these changes." By absorbing carbon dioxide the oceans actually help stave off climate change. In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide produced by humans, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. They are currently taking up one tonne of this carbon dioxide for each person on the planet every year. However, the report warns that rising levels of acidity in the ocean may mean that the ability of the oceans to mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be reduced. This is because the chemistry of the surface waters of the ocean means that as carbon dioxide is added, its ability to take up more is decreased. Furthermore, any rise in ocean temperatures, due to climate change, could reduce the ability of the surface waters to take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Professor Raven said: "The oceans play a vital role in the earth's climate and other natural systems which are all interconnected. By blindly meddling with one part of this complex mechanism, we run the risk of unwittingly triggering far reaching effects." The report looks at various ways of tackling rising acidity such as adding limestone to the oceans to make them more alkaline. However, it found that the only practical way to minimise the risk to the oceans and marine life is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (3). The report point out that there is still much uncertainty around the impacts of ocean acidification and recommends that a major international effort be launched into this relatively new area of research. NOTES FOR EDITORS: 1. The Royal Society is an independent academy promoting the natural and applied sciences. Founded in 1660, the Society has three roles, as the UK academy of science, as a learned Society, and as a funding agency. It responds to individual demand with selection by merit, not by field. The Society's objectives are to: strengthen UK science by providing support to excellent individuals fund excellent research to push back the frontiers of knowledge attract and retain the best scientists ensure the UK engages with the best science around the world support science communication and education; and communicate and encourage dialogue with the public provide the best independent advice nationally and internationally promote scholarship and encourage research into the history of science 2. Calculations indicate that the oceans uptake of carbon dioxide has led to a reduction of the pH (the scale of acidity whereby a reduction in pH indicates a rise in acidity) of surface seawater of 0.1 units. If the global emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH is projected to fall by up to 0.5 units by 2100. Surface oceans currently have an average pH of 8.2. 3. The report recommends that if the risk of irreversible damage arising from ocean acidification is to be avoided, particularly in the Southern Ocean, the cumulative future emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities to the atmosphere must be considerably less than 900 Giga tonnes of Carbon by 2100 The Royal Society working group on ocean acidification are: Chair: Professor John Raven FRS, University of Dundee Members: Dr Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Professor Harry Elderfield FRS, University of Cambridge; Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Professor Peter Liss, University of East Anglia; Professor Ulf Riebesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Germany; Professor John Shepherd FRS,,4 University of Southampton; Dr Carol Turley, Plymouth Marine Laboratory; Professor Andrew Watson FRS; University of East Anglia For further information and copies of the report contact: Sue Windebank Press and Public Relations The Royal Society, London Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk

Note: www.royalsoc.ac.uk

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:11 am
    YES - future emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities to the atmosphere "must" be considerably less.<br />
    <br />
    I couldn't agree more and millions of others also agree and yet world governments are still taking the slow boat on this effort. <br />
    <br />
    Perhaps they are being sloe so that the finanical health of economies can be given the priority. What is totally unacceptable is that much can be done that is not being done. I suspect the reason may have something to do with the fact the most politicians seem to be lousy at mathematics.<br />
    <br />
    Here are just two examples:<br />
    <br />
    1) The Ontario Drive Clean Program has been a major mathematical benefit to cost ratio)failure when comparing the benefit to cost ratio success that would likey have reslted by investing similar funding in Intelligent Transportaton Systems. In 1999 the Ontario Drive Clean Program said it saved 7 million litres of fuel, but for every i minute that all Ontario light duty vehicles idled less each day in 1999 that saving would have been 7 times greater. The actual cost of the program from Jan 99 to Feb 2000 was over $37 million. If this cost had been invested in Intelligent Transportation Systems the benefits to the environment, to the economy, to the citizens of Ontario and to futre generations would have been much greater.<br />
    <br />
    2) Since 1982, while the US populaton grew just 20 percent, the time American spend in traffic jumped an amazing 236 percent. Now consider that the April 2005 US National Traffic Signal report card gave the country an overall grade of 62 a D-minus. And yet they for as little as $4 per vehicle per year the country could get an A rating and reduce traffic delay from 15 - 40%, reduction in stops from 10 - 40% and travel time reductions up to 25%. That would reduce fuel consumption up to 10% and nationally that would amoutn to saving of almsot 17 billion gallons of motor fuels per year. It would also reduce harmful emissions of (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds) up to 22%.<br />
    <br />
    Yet even that report card "failed-to-highlight" how actions to bring about these improvements could significantly help the world reach the Kyoto treaty targets. (That important factor should not be overlooked.)<br />
    <br />
    Taxpayers deserve wise investments and, in the case of traffic signal timing (there are new dvanced Traffic Adaptive Signal Control Systems that are not being taken advantage of) it is an investment that will reap benenfits immediatley.<br />
    <br />
    Why are the politicians not up to speed on this?<br />
    <br />
    That is why I am presently working on another paper on this subject in colaboraton with the Utah Traffic Lab for the Transportation Research Board. <br />
    <br />
    Jame J. Sylvester (1814 - 1897) said "Mathematics is the music of reason". If people could understand that then why can't our world leaders understand that now? Mathematics does not choose between the economy and the environment, it is concerned only with the enumeration and comparison of relations. Why can't our leaders do that?<br />
    <br />
    The total World Venicles in 2003 including heavy duty trucks and buses has been reported to be 813,000,000. That's right we are closing in on a billion. The number is rising fast and we are still using out of date traffic signals that let people just sit there and wait more than needed and polute, polute, polute, while they waste, waste, waste their time, thier money and thier fuel......and that harms our oceans and our air.....need I go on? <br />
    <br />
    Sorry for being long winded ....I could talk about this for days.<br />
    <br />
    Please visit <a href="http://www.trafficlab.utah.edu/research/survey.htm">http://www.trafficlab.utah.edu/research/survey.htm</a><br />
    and click on SMART OPIRG McMaster<br />
    <br />
    Bob <br />
    Founder of SMART (Student Math Action Research Team)OPIRG McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada - making mathematics matter more for the environment <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>Canadabob

  2. Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:19 am
    I am not into statistics as you are; however, it is being proven more and more that new technology to help fight global warming is actually creating thousands of new jobs in this line. Just as we were duped into accepting NAFTA (remember, it was all about jobs, jobs, jobs?), so now too we are being duped into believing that jobs are going to be lost. In my view, as long as the oil companies run affairs on this planet, NOTHING is going to be done about global warming and carbon dioxin emitions. Don't those people realize that if we go under, so too will they?

    ---
    Vera Gottlieb

  3. Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:52 pm
    Yes they realize that, but they also see themselves as not responsible. In thier view it is the corporation that is in control not them. Their job is to produce, produce, produce (profits) or get out. The corporations don't care about the next generation and even though they (the corporations and the people running them) may realize that they are driving fast toward a brick wall they hope they will either survive the crash or die before the vehicle they are in hits that wall. To make themselves feel better they are likely counting on and hoping someone else will solve the problems that they are contributing to.

    ---
    Canadabob

  4. Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:27 pm
    Earth or Ocean?<br />
    <br />
    Why is it that this blue planet which is 70% ocean is called Earth? And further why is it our terran focus seems to be almost exclusively toward earth. As global climate change reaches crisis proportions we continue to think in terms of earth effects. The reality is that the future effects of rising CO2 in terms of 'global warming' pale in comparison to the immediate impacts on our ocean environment. Here are some alarming points to consider.<br />
    <br />
    First the presently observed acidification of the oceans (more acidic by 0.1-0.2pH units in the past 30 years) is sufficient to demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 has already reached crisis proportions. By mid-century ocean plants and animals that depend on calcium and silica will find it difficult to create their bodies as the acid ocean will dissolve their calcium and silica. Second the growing body of evidence shows that the oceans are broadly diminished in baseline productivity (26% in the North Pacific 15% in the North Atlantic) portend additional and explain already dire ocean changes. Third and perhaps the most alarming of all there is now the documented shift of the oceans to a heterotrophic (oxygen consuming) state from autotrophic (oxygen producing) state. These facts are so alarming that indeed dying ocean scenarios are now a reality brought on by presently high CO2 levels. Mitigation of the impact of the present CO2 levels in the oceans let alone rising CO2 additions must become a major global priority. It is one thing to be too globally warm but another thing entirely to be lacking in oxygen.<br />
    <br />
    Russ George <br />
    <a href="http://www.planktos.com">www.planktos.com</a> <br />



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news