Ocean Acidification Is Climate Change's 'Equally Evil Twin,' NOAA Chief Says

[kristopher]

Ocean Acidification Is Climate Change's 'Equally Evil Twin,' NOAA Chief Says
AP | Posted: 07/09/2012 12:51 am Updated: 07/09/2012 12:51 pm

SYDNEY (AP) — Oceans' rising acid levels have emerged as one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, acting as the "osteoporosis of the sea" and threatening everything from food security to tourism to livelihoods, the head of a U.S. scientific agency said Monday.

The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.

"We've got sort of the perfect storm of stressors from multiple places really hammering reefs around the world," said Lubchenco, who was in Australia to speak at the International Coral Reef Symposium in the northeast city of Cairns, near the Great Barrier Reef. "It's a very serious situation."

Oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, increasing sea acidity. Scientists are worried about how that increase will affect sea life, particularly reefs, as higher acid levels make it tough for coral skeletons to form. Lubchenco likened ocean acidification to osteoporosis — a bone-thinning disease — because researchers are concerned it will lead to the deterioration of reefs.

Scientists initially assumed that the carbon dioxide absorbed by the water would be sufficiently diluted ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/ocean-acidification-reefs-climate-change_n_1658081.html?ref=topbar

[RobertEarl]

1. We are talking about pH here

What is the normal pH of seawater? I don't have a clue, really.

Of course, any pHer knows that as water temp increases, pH goes down.

[The Doctor.]

3. What's your point?

That if temps go up, the pH will balance out?

I hope you realize the foolishness such an assumption would indicate.

[RobertEarl]

5. Temps go up pH goes down, I wrote

You didn't read and grok what I wrote, eh?

Do you feel stupid that you don't know the pH of seawater? Don't.

[The Doctor.]

33. You're not the sharpest bulb on the chandelier, are ya?

Are those rises and falls concomitant and/or proportionate?

It's a pretty simple question for someone as 'bright' as yourself. If you don't get it, feel free to continue to resort to derision instead of actual facts or knowledge.

[RobertEarl]

34. Hey Doc

Wasssup?!?

[The Doctor.]

35. Yeah, pretty much what I figured.

Welcome to ignore.

[joshcryer]

7. The oceans are heating at a rate of 190k 1GW nuclear power plants...

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

...and yet the pH levels continue to decrease.



Whatever the case the heating still isn't enough to stem the acidification effect.

[RobertEarl]

8. Ummmm

When pH goes down, it means it is getting more acidic.

pH of 7.0 is base. 6.9 acidic. 7.1 alkaline.

Does anyone know what the mean pH of seawater is?

[joshcryer]

9. Oops, my bad. I phrased that inaccurately. Here's Wikipedia's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

If you're a chemist or whatever and know the equation why don't you do it?

[caraher]

10. Wikipedia says 7.5 to 8.4 for the pH of seawater <nt>

[RobertEarl]

11. Thanks

I don't know why i never think of wikipedia!

So seawater is alkaline. Found out the other day that cesium is alkaline. And very reactive with water, iirc.

Humans do better on alkaline water and i imagine most sea creatures do to. Those that thrive on more acidic will adapt better than those that don't. I know of a study on FW trout that found a pH that was very acidic caused aluminum to stick to gills thereby reducing oxygen intake.

[XemaSab]

24. Which is why there are warm, basic pools in the southwest

[The Doctor.]

2. We're in very deep shit.

Many of us here will live to see the catastrophe.

[GliderGuider]

4. All of us here have lived to see the beginning of the catastrophe.

It kinda sucks.

[joshcryer]

6. Yep.

It's pretty fucked.

Technology to save the day!

Otherwise I will have to cry myself to sleep every night.

[GliderGuider]

12. Acidification is increasing at ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene-Eocene mass extinction

Wikipedia: Ocean acidification

Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[23] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene-Eocene mass extinction. The current and projected acidification has been described as an almost unprecedented geological event.[24] A National Research Council study released in April 2010 likewise concluded that "the level of acid in the oceans is increasing at an unprecedented rate."[25][26] A 2012 paper in the journal Science examined the geological record in an attempt to find a historical analog for current global conditions as well as those of the future. The researchers determined that the current rate of ocean acidification is faster than at any time in the past 300 million years.

It's not just the coral that is at risk here. This effect has the potential to become a planetary-scale extinction event.

[limpyhobbler]

13. And to think, much of it could have been prevented.

We had plenty of warning.

But it didn't matter. It still doesn't matter. Look at Rio+20.

[GliderGuider]

14. We had plenty of warning, but

Could it have been prevented? I'm not so sure.

[pscot]

15. What you see is what you get

This is, as Dr. Pangloss observd, the best of all possible worlds.

[GliderGuider]

16. "Party on Wayne!"

"Party on, Garth!"

[limpyhobbler]

19. I think maybe

"We had plenty of warning" implies "much of it could have been prevented" .

If we had plenty of warning than means at least some of the CO2 effects could have been prevented, or else it wouldn't have been plenty of warning.

But word games aside, I don't really know either.

I have the sense that if the significant countries would have acted in a concerted way to make big changes about 20 years ago, we could have at least reduced the damage and gotten on a track towards something sustainable. Admittedly that's not based in science as much as it is on politics and pop-science like Al Gore's movie.

[dipsydoodle]

26. Try 50 years ago

And with regard the USA not a lot has changed : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

[The Doctor.]

36. "Could" it have been prevented?

Did you really actually ask that?

The answer is a resounding and absolute 'Yes!'.

If the world understood the science and the propagandists who created the denial movement were hauled out and summarily executed by immolation, then YES, we could have saved future generations of billions of people and millions of species from the coming cataclysm.

But we didn't do what we needed to.

May our children curse us softly in their sleep.

[GliderGuider]

38. Hmm. My answer is a resounding and absolute "No".

But I probably have a different take on the nature of reality.

We ended up here, right where we are. That means that all the forces of the universe - everything from the laws of physics to our own human nature - worked together to bring about this outcome. Given all that, we couldn't have ended up anywhere else. It's physically impossible.

Perhaps you're confusing "could" with "should". The first is an expression of possibility which is only valid when speaking of the future, not the past. The second is an expression of preference or morality which is a very tricky personal thing.

After a lot of years spent railing about what we coulda/shoulda done, and what shit we're in because we didn't, and how we're all gonna pay for our sins, I've realized I'm actually fine with it all. Why should I object to reality? It just is what is, after all.

[The Doctor.]

39. You are confusing 'possible' with 'probable'.

If you don't think it could have been prevented, then you lack the modicum of imagination required to envision how it could have been prevented.

Yes, it most certainly could have been prevented. If you can't understand that simple, simple truth just because you're caught up in the overwhelming complexity of why it was not prevented, then we're done here.

[GliderGuider]

40. Actually, the reason why it was not prevented is very simple.

It works like this:

If things had been different then, they would be different now. They were what they were then, so they are what they are now.

Wishes and hindsight can't change the past, so they can't change the present. The future may be another story, except it has a bad habit of turning into the past in turn, where the same rules apply.

As I said, I'm developing a very different view of the nature of reality, and I'm content to let it rest here.

[RobertEarl]

41. Haven't we seen this before?

Reality taking a seat in someone's mind.

People are funny. When the truth finally hits them they go off half-cocked and start attacking friends.

We've been through all this before and it's a settled situation. The world as we know it is coming to its conclusion soon enough and all we can really do is try and get ready for the changes. It is what it is. No use casting asparagus on anyone else, except, I guess, (and have been guilty of myself) to relieve some pressure.

What's the old saying? Ah yes... Get over it.

[GliderGuider]

42. There's also this possibility

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2012, 08:18 AM - Edit history (3)

Consider the worldview of an activist for a moment.

For an activist, change is not only desirable but essential. The world is seen as not being OK as it is, it is always in need of improvement. In order to move toward improvement the world must be changed along the lines valued by the activist. Not to change means to stay mired forever in imperfection. The activist views this constant mutability, with the world being driven by human desires from a state of shortcoming towards a state of perfection, as the natural state of affairs. Driving that change is seen as a responsibility, even an obligation.

The view I have adopted is that the world is in fact perfect exactly as it is. If it was "meant" to be any other way, it would have been. In this view there is no need to drive change, change simply happens. The idea of having made mistakes in the past is seen as just that - an idea. Things happened as they did, and there's nothing that can be done in the present to change that. similarly, there's no need to work towards improvement in the future. Change will happen, we will play a role, but we don't direct the unfolding of the future.

Activists may see this view as passive, fatalistic and possibly even irresponsible. I see it as obvious. It may cause an activist pain to encounter this attitude, because it violates their carefully nurtured and deeply defended concepts of "should" and "shouldn't".

DU has a high population of activists.

[Gregorian]

17. Are we ever going to really talk about world population?

Is it still considered neurotic to discuss the very cause of all of these problems? Is it still so taboo that we have to dance around it, and only discuss the symptoms?

I'm rapidly losing all hope that anyone really cares.

I had a dream last night about the first things to start happening as climate chaos affects us. Decreasing the military is a big beginning step. But population is by far the fastest means by which we could alter our course.

[kristopher]

18. No one is stopping you. What do you want to say?

You could start by more fully explaining your belief that to deal with climate change "population is by far the fastest means by which we could alter our course".

That seems self evidently wrong to me, but I'd like to hear more specifically what you mean.

[Gregorian]

29. It's pretty obvious.

If the equation has two parts, users and what they're using, and growth is essentially exponential, then even altering use is not effective over even a short period of time. And that is only with respect to fossil fuel.

The real issues that make an even stronger case for population decrease are the food, water, medical... And even those have components of fossil fuel use. 1% of our energy use alone goes into manufacturing nitrogen for soil amendment.

So we can call it "green" and feel like we've accomplished something, only to have it wiped out in 20 years. Renewable energy is only part of this equation.

I may not have been clear on something. There is a reason we're pumping nitrogen into our soil. We can argue about that. But as it is, ocean acidification may be our biggest problem. And that is due to, you guessed it, too many mouths.

Why not try another billion people. What do you think that's going to be like?

[kristopher]

30. I was actually wanting to hear where you go from there

It's obvious we are straining the resources of the planet given the current parameters. What are you proposing for a solution that lies in the realm of population?

Also, I could be wrong but, it sounds like you are relating nitrogen fertilizers to ocean acidification. Dead zones are caused by cycles of excess plant and animal growth induced by nitrogen and nutrient run-off. Acidification is a result of CO2 absorption from the atmosphere by seawater.

[The Doctor.]

37. Don't worry, the population will be finding itself savagely reduced soon enough.

Sadly, ours won't be the only species curtailed.

[RobertEarl]

20. Get real

If we all lived like the people in India did, we wouldn't be having this problem. True, or not?

[GliderGuider]

21. If we all lived like the people in India did...

we'd be having very different, but not less severe problems,

[RobertEarl]

22. Can't blame Indians

It is the western world, people like you, who are to fault for the current global warming problems.

Hell, most Indians have never used as much coal as a 10 year old westerner.

[GliderGuider]

23. To expand on that idea a bit more

Modern industrial societies have a lot to recommend them from the human point of view, especially compared to agrarian societies of the recent past.

We have much higher levels of material comfort and physical security, more interesting things to do (and longer lives to do them in), lower levels of illness and debilitation, much less gender inequality, as well as much higher levels of social equality, social mobility and social justice. Added to that is an incomparably broader range of intellectual and philosophical options opened up by literacy and the loosening of hierarchic control over our thoughts and actions.

The price for this advancement and the population growth it has entrained has been our theft of resources and opportunity from future generations of humans as well as from countless other species, the generalized fouling of the planet, the homogenization of culture, our alienation from the natural world, the loss of our sense of community, and a generalized anomie that comes from a loss of a sense of meaning (as a cube-rat I suffer from this a lot). While we've diminished the grip of religious and monarchic hierarchies, we have simultaneously thrown away much of our sense of the sacred - a mode of perception that seems to be necessary at some level for humans to feel in tune with the universe.

Losing population and keeping our technology would allow us to maintain many of the benefits of industrialization, while easing the burden on other species and future generations of people. If we could manage this we might be able to reduce our impact on the planet while not falling back into the ravages of our agrarian past.

Cutting our technology (aka consumption) while trying to maintain our population would toss us right back into the maw of an agrarian hell - soaring social inequity, a massive loss of physical comfort and security, a huge increase in our workload, and rising levels of disease and warfare that would reduce our population anyway.

I=PAT tells us that if we want to maintain our affluence and technology while reducing our impact we must reduce our population. As a result I have great sympathy for those who try to do that (I'm childfree, and my familial generation of five people has produced only two children).

However, we don't always get the outcome we want, and I'm pretty sure that the "real" future is going to resemble a mutant industrial/agrarian hybrid. We have a lot of knowledge which we'll keep, but the problem we're about to face is a converging combination of losses: the loss of non-renewable resources (i.e. liquid fuels and some metals); the loss of food production due to climate change; and the loss of social cohesion due to the degradation of our overly complex and corrupt socioeconomic structure.

That converging crisis of energy, ecology and economics will throw some places in the world into chaos. Hardest hit will be those societies that are trying to emerge from a recent agrarian or horticultural past. Unfortunately, because of the penetration of technology the effects "over there" will probably ripple into developed OECD nations (think of the thin white line of a tsunami ripple on the horizon here).

An urgent, voluntary reduction in world population would probably give us the best chance to avoid the worst effects of the converging crisis. Unfortunately, it takes a long time to reduce a population, and time is the one thing we don't have any more.

So, in sum, we'll muddle along as usual - keeping what technology we can while natural forces like disease and starvation prune the vulnerable sections of the human population. Unfortunately, in the process of doing all this, the one thing that will take the biggest hit is the environment and the other species that share it. In the competition between human and non-human lives, humans win every battle - even if that means we may ultimately lose the war.

[Nihil]

25. Just picking up on one phrase there ...

> An urgent, voluntary reduction in world population would probably give us
> the best chance to avoid the worst effects of the converging crisis.

I disagree. The volunteers would be those very people who are already concerned
about the situation, who are already sufficiently aware of the timescales & impacts
of BAU and who have the altruism/heroism to "do the right thing" even when it
means they pay the full price for it.

Unfortunately, these are the very people who the planet NEEDS, who the struggling
species NEED and who the rest of the human race NEEDS in order to transform in
the least painful & tragic fashion under the coming storm(s).

If such a voluntary reduction occurred, the remaining people would merely turn
back to their TV, push their snouts further into the trough and then breed some
more uncared-for bastards to consume faster than before.

To borrow your own phrase, we would be wilfully throwing away even more of our
"sense of the sacred" - like burning fossil fuel in the form of natural gas in order
to obtain fossil fuel in the form of tar sand oil ... and then burning that whilst
wondering why the climate is a-changing ...

[GliderGuider]

27. Yes, you've put your finger on the problem.

Even if we tried to do something as radical as cut global birth rates by 80% for a generation or two, what we'd get would be the "Idiocracy Effect" on steroids. The answer to that problem would be to have a birth lottery, but there ain't nobody in the world going to agree to that. Even if they did, serious population decline wouldn't begin for a generation, and that's far too long to stop the onset of the storm.

No, the answer is what it's always been. The die has been cast, the game is afoot, the elephant is already comfortably seated on the living-room sofa, we have to play the hand we've been dealt, we made our bed and now we have to lie in it, etc.

Those who understand the need and have the ability to contribute will help nibble away around the edges of the problem, but the the broad shape of the unfolding crisis will not be altered.

That's why I've decided just to be a witness to the changes - I know what's happening, I know what's probably coming,and I know I can't do a blessed thing to stop it, so I might as well watch in wonder.

[NickB79]

31. There was a documentary made about this problem

It's called "Idiocracy".

[Gregorian]

28. Don't be disingenuous, we're talking about modern living here.

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

We're going to have a billion more cars on the road soon. And everyone who is living a modern lifestyle isn't going back. Are you going to start taking cold showers? No. So at this point in time the only truly important thing to discuss is population.

I would like to add an important premise to this discussion. Shouldn't we be enjoying modern society? Shouldn't everyone be able to have health care, dental care, and all of the things that come with 20th century living? I certainly wouldn't want a root canal without the proper array of advanced materials that avoid the extreme discomfort. And the convenience derived from the things we developed over the last centuries.

There is a problem with this scenario. We can argue, but there is a true limit that exists. Only so much energy, material, waste can be created before we encounter the problems we're encountering now. We're already over the limit.

I'd like to see everyone living above a nominal level.

[RobertEarl]

32. disingenuous?

Are the billion Indians disingenuous? How about the 1.3 billion Chinese? Are they the ones who are causing the problems to any degree close to what we have caused? What if there were 6 times as many resource hogs like us? Eh?

We went over the limit a long, long time ago. The only way we get back to the garden is if we reduce our resource use to below what most of the rest of the world uses. BELOW.

But we know that will not happen, so the only recourse if the world is to stay at least a remnant garden is for us white, resource hogs to go away. Us sitting here bemoaning the population of the REST of the world is bullS.