Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CO2 levels haven't been this high in 15-million years. We're gonna need a bigger boat.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:24 AM
Original message
CO2 levels haven't been this high in 15-million years. We're gonna need a bigger boat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.

Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England’s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.

"We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago," she said. "We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Tripati's new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.

"We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history," Tripati said.

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity."

Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.

"Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic," Tripati said.

Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati, who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the last 20 million years in detail.

More than 50 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on Earth, and there were expanded deserts in the subtropics, Tripati noted. The planet was radically different.

Co-authors on the Science paper are Christopher Roberts, a Ph.D. student in the department of Earth sciences at the University of Cambridge, and Robert Eagle, a postdoctoral scholar in the division of geological and planetary sciences at the California Institute of Technology.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Based on extrapolation and theory. Not based on anything tangible, like being there.
Like the dinosaurs. Nobody with a brain will question their existence, but how does everybody know they had scales and not fur? Or did the kids' fun-time coloring book tell them so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Everything in science if theoretical
Even adding and subtracting, it is called number theory.

Eventually you will have to pull your head out of the sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Explanation/Speculation
'Theory' has more than one meaning.

Theory can be speculation ... "I have a theory that extraterrestrial aliens are visiting Earth."

Or, it is an explanation. I don't believe there is much speculation about 'Number Theory' ... theory in this instance means how the properties of numbers and integers actually work.

The religious-right, anti-science types make this confusion on purpose all the time. The theory of thermodynamics, for instance, is not a speculation -- it is a fact and the 'theory' is a explanation of how it functions. The "theory of evolution' is also not a speculation, it is a fact. So, all their whining that evolution is just a "theory" is a rhetorical misdirection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
33. I see you felled into the trap set by the Religious right
You call the Theory of Evolution "Fact", it is not, it is the best explanations of the facts we do have, but that does not make it a fact. This is one of the rules of logic, If you have C, you have A and B, but if you have A and B, does not prove you have C. If you have a murder, you have a dead body and a weapon, if you have a deal body and a weapon, that does NOT show murder (The victim may have died of natural causes unrelated to the weapon and the weapon was just found near the body).

This distinction is important, for the fossil record is best explained by the theory of evolution, we have no actual cases of direct evolution i.e. no set of facts showing A being B. Now we do have factual situation that shows how the theory works (for example the change in color of insects over a time period, but those cases reflect proportional numbers of both colors not so much evidence that it is evolving from one color to another).

Lets make sure we do NOT get into the trap where we state as something as a "Fact", a theory that can NOT be proven under the rules of Logic. The rules of Logic are quite severe and if used in a Criminal Cases, most criminals would walk (and this why the courts use the test "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a significant LOWER burden of Proof, in Civil Matters the burden is even lower). The right wants us to fall into the trap for at that point ANY evidence that shows something else can be shown to show that that position is wrong. Defending the THEORY of evolution avoids those traps, for stating that the Theory is just the best explanation of known facts, a piece of evidence that can be construed as showing something else proves nothing by itself. The explanation MUST explain most of the facts and the other "explanations" can NOT do that and are thus weaker then the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation, but just because it does that does NOT make it a "Fact". A "Fact" MUST survive an attack under the rules of Logic, but a theory does NOT.

My point is that if you call a theory a fact, you subject the theory to the very harsh rules of Logic. On the other hand, by keeping the theory of Evolution a theory (which is all it is) you do NOT have to meet the rules of Logic. Modern Scientific Theory aroused out of the impossibility of meeting the Rules of Logic but we needed a way to explain known facts. Thus we have the theory of Electricity, Theory of thermodynamics, Theory of Flight etc. None can be proven under the Rules of Logic, but each explain the known facts of those subjects and fully usable theory. Furthermore each of those three can be tested using double blind tests, which makes then stronger theories then the theory of evolution, but double blind tests can NOT be used to test the theory of evolution (double blind tests can be used to test the MECHANISM of the theory, such as the above comment about Color of insects).

Lets keep the theory of evolution a theory for as a theory it is in a strong position, as a fact its defensive position is much weaker. The rules of logic can be used against the theory of evolution as a fact, but can NOT be used if we keep it a theory. Lets keep referring to it as a theory, for that is all it is, we can NOT make it a fact just because we believe it to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. How did we know how strong gravity would be on the Moon without being there?
Nobody questioned the Moon's existence either, but how could we know so much about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Someone who thinks he knows more than a whole generation of scientific specialists
who have been studying the issue for over a decade. Can't even imagine how someone choosing such willful ignorance could ever have anything worthwhile to say to me, so you have just made it to "ignore".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Braulio Donating Member (860 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Dinosaur Fur
We know Dinosaurs didnt' have fur because they didn't exist. The world is only 6000 years old, it says so in the Bible. Dinosaur fossils are fakes put there by the Devil to make some of you believe in evolution and all that stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Well...
the fact paleontologists have discovered fossilized dinosaur hides, and they were covered with scales is one good piece of evidence that their extrapolation was correct...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. See Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Sadly, that ain't the half of it.
Edited on Sat Oct-10-09 12:09 PM by clear eye
Increased CO2 and burning dirty coal have made the oceans so acidic that a huge % of the upper level phytoplankton have been killed, greatly reducing oxygen production. Vastly under-reported story, but here are a couple of URLs: www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20080605-17277.html
www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/04
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You should read the articles more closely
This is a problem in the making, it hasn't YET reached the point you state of killing sea-life.

Note the conditional in this quote "How serious acidifying seas will be for all life on Earth, researchers cannot yet say. But they have already measured observable changes in the ocean’s pH, and have also demonstrated that even tiny shifts can kill corals and various common marine plankton and algae that are a foundation of the ocean’s food web..."

It is also important to understand the scale of the change - it is a very small move towards the acidic that is within the range of normal. Although the problem is very, very real, the articles you've pointed to are sensationalistic. The expected problems aren't that shellfish will have their shells "dissolved" but that the water chemistry will prevent the formation of exoskeletal structures which will affect the food chain. This hasn't happened to a large degree yet, but we do have evidence of thinning shells in some areas.

While we've measured increased acidity in specific regions of the upper layers of the oceans, the entire bulk of the ocean and the way it mixes has to be taken into account to understand what is happening enough to predict the way things will unfold. We've only just started looking at the problem.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Once again, look for primary sources…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=205188&mesg_id=205188


“We’re not saying that crab shells are going to start dissolving, but these organisms have adapted their physiology to a certain range of acidity. Early results have shown that when some species of crabs and fish are exposed to more acidic water, certain stress hormones increase and their metabolism slows down. If they are spending energy responding to acidity changes, then that energy is diverted away from growth, foraging and reproduction,” said Mathis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. WTF does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. (I'm agreeing with you, but naturally, you immediately get hostile.)
Neither Science Alert nor Common Dreams are primary sources. People should always try to get as close to the original research as possible.

Each time a story is written, drawing information from other (non-primary) sources, a little bit of the truth is lost.

I prefer to read the actual study, but I realize many people do not. A press release, like the one I cited, is at least written in consultation with the researchers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The 'hostility' is a reaction to your prediliction for non sequiturs and lack of clarity
I freely admit that once again trying to derive your intent from 5 words and a snip of text was irritating. Perhaps your remarks would have been more clear if directed as a response to post 6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. May I suggest a different tack?
Perhaps, if you had read the paragraph I quoted, you would have seen that it reinforced what you said.

If you do not understand, perhaps you could say something like, "I don't understand" and explain what it is that you do not understand.

Perhaps I expect too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. And perhaps you should just try a bit harder to ensure your post is relevant.
I did read the paragraph and it makes no sense as a response to what I wrote. I have no need of your advice regarding the use of original sources. You should have directed the reply to post 6, but of course you are incapable of admitting you screwed the pooch yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You do have a gift for colorful language
I was speaking with a client just the other day… She said that she and her daughter had a method for reading what they write before they post it on the internet for all the world to read. They agreed on a nice older woman they both knew and admired. They ask themselves, would they want her to read what they have written, or would they be embarrassed if she did.

You quite freely insult people you don't even know. Please, find a grown-up to consult with about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. It depends on what one finds insulting
For example, when someone lies or misrepresents the facts or makes specious arguments out of sheer cussed stubbornness, then as far as I'm concerned that person has forfeited all rights to being addressed with civility. Claims such as the one you are making is nothing more than an attempt to hide your own malicious behavior behind a patina of "manners". You argue the most nonsensical bullshit and then run from having to confront your confusion by crying "You're rude".
Note this case: you made a comment to me that should have been addressed to another person, and instead of just admitting your error, you divert to my supposed lack of civility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. We were discussing phytoplankton & corals, not crabs.
How does an irrelevant primary source disprove secondary write-ups of relevant ones? I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time, I could find the primary sources on which the articles I cited were based.

Why don't you dig them up and see if they seem problematic to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I looked for primary sources for that guys quote about plankton die off.
Couldn't find a primary source, so I will err caution and trust the guy since he seems quite well respected in the coral / oceanic field and has received quite a few grants.

Local die off in significant quantities is a signifier of worse things to come. Obviously not enough to make a conclusion (of course, science doesn't work that way). But enough for one to be concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. If you're just looking for a source confirming that plankton have gone missing,
here's one from NASA dated 2002. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html

Maybe he thought that the drastic reductions in large parts of the ocean have been so well known for so long that it didn't need a citation. You know, like the existence of the ozone hole, or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. I looked for CO2 attribution, mind you.
Unfortunately that article is too preliminary. I'm sure a paper exists due to reading his publications about the issue (he has confirmed coral effects due to CO2). Just looking for the plankton cite (again, attributed to CO2, by acidification).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. See my embarrassed & detailed retraction (#31) below.
The plankton problems may well be the result of increased CO2, but only indirectly as global warming changes the movement of water in the oceans w/ the effect of increased stratification, bringing fewer nutrients up from the deep and causing other changes in chemistry of the upper waters. Reading of the primary research indicates that direct harm from acidification isn't expected to be significant until 2030.

Not very reassuring, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I think you're confused.
Carbonate exoskeletons would be on zooplankton(tiny animals including coral) not phytoplankton(tiny plants & algae). Diatoms have silicate skeletons, so acidification harms phytoplankton via other mechanisms. The coral are already dying worldwide, as are much of the upper level plankton. That is not theory. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html Oceanic mixing has not saved them. In fact it is generally accepted that global warming increases oceanic stratification, decreasing mixing. The research just uncovers the probability that the deaths are tied to ocean acidification. Neither is there any question that much of the ongoing production of oxygen on earth is done by oceanic phytoplankton, any more than there is doubt that another large source was Earth's rainforests.

Of course there is much more work to be done to link the depletion of fish in Northern oceans, for instance, w/ loss of phytoplankton. There may be other causes. But it is known that oxygen levels have risen and fallen at various times in Earth's history, and that the end of the age of giantism in both plants and animals has been associated w/ lowered oxygen levels. There is good reason to predict that there will be consequences, even if we do not yet know the extent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. No, I'm not confused
Edited on Sat Oct-10-09 03:59 PM by kristopher
Coccolithophores* are the organisms where thinning of shells has been observed. Yes coral is dying but my understanding is that in regards to climate change, the problem relates more their sensitivity to sea level rise and its effect on their depth and the amount of light than it does to ocean acidification.

Yes there WILL be consequences, but your comments in post 6 were completely wrong in that you assigned causation where none has been observed or proven.


Coccolithophores (also called coccolithophorids) are single-celled algae, protists and phytoplankton belonging to the division haptophytes. They are distinguished by special calcium carbonate plates (or scales) of uncertain function called coccoliths (calcareous nanoplankton), which are important microfossils. Coccolithophores are almost exclusively marine and are found in large numbers throughout the surface euphotic zone of the ocean. An example of a globally-significant coccolithophore is Emiliania huxleyi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccolithophore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. The increased depth (lowered light) theory
Edited on Sat Oct-10-09 04:47 PM by clear eye
has been unable to consistently explain diebacks. Regression of coral is now thought to be multi-factorial. Among the reasons are pollution including excess fertilization of the water by sewage & agricultural runoff, and acidification. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0108-hance_coral.html (summary of an extensive study by a Dr. Camilo Mora)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Of course coral dieoff is a result of a variety of causes, however
I specified the causes related to the area of climate change. Acidification has not yet (to my knowledge) been shown to be a factor.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get to here; your first post made some hyperbolic claims that simply are not able to be supported. Are you attempting to say they were correct, or are you just moving on?

This is your remark I'm responding to, "Increased CO2 and burning dirty coal have made the oceans so acidic that a huge % of the upper level phytoplankton have been killed, greatly reducing oxygen production."


Die off - yes.
Cause acidification - not likely and certainly not established.

Have you ever used google scholar? It limits searches to academic articles. http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&ned=us&q=&tab=ws
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Thanks for the new tool. I'm going to have to eat my words.
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 08:04 AM by clear eye
I was misled by the conflating of the phytoplankton die-off and marine acidification in the news reports and a documentary. After going through the journal articles I can see that ocean acidification is actually highest around the Arctic where its speeded by increased glacial meltwater due to global warming, while loss of plankton is mainly occurring in warmer waters, pointing to the effects of increased stratification due to global warming. I was also surprised to find research done near Bermuda saying that around there acid rain only accounted for 2% of ocean acidification. Of course that's as far from the coal furnaces of China as you can get.

The loss of phytoplankton up until now seems due mainly to indirect effects of increased CO2. However, journal articles from 2007 to the present found using the terms {plankton OR phytoplankton acidification ocean OR oceanic OR marine}, include quite a few that expect significant direct effects of acidification based on both physical experiments with marine microbiota and CO2 level modeling, as early as 2030.

This paper, "Ecosystem effects of ocean acidification in times
of ocean warming: a physiologist’s view" www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m373_ThemeSection.pdf#page=5, from an oceanic institute in Germany, emphasized the cumulative nature of the various rapid changes due to human activities.

As it turns out, though, the distinction is not as important for public policy. Whether directly via oceanic acidification or indirectly via global warming and resulting changes to the movements of water in the oceans, increased CO2 is already doing damage to the base of the ecosystem and a main source of O2, which will only increase as its production accelerates.

edited b/c the html link function mysteriously wouldn't work right. Maybe it doesn't accept pdf's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Just a tidbit; in 16 years we will have released as much CO2 as we did the past 150.
So while some may bemoan the issue as "not likely" because it isn't well understood, that does not mean we should not be highly concerned of the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. "even tiny shifts can kill corals and various common marine plankton and algae"
Edited on Sat Oct-10-09 03:26 PM by clear eye
"{researchers} have already measured observable changes in the ocean’s pH"

I think your citations refute your contention that the problem is only in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Please learn to read. You are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Related problem
The decrease of oceanic mixing, especially in equatorial zone waters has led to lower phosphorus at the top (sunlit) layer of the ocean. Researchers have reported that some plankton have adapted by using sulfur in their cellular membranes instead of phosphorus, making them toxic to much marine life.

And so it begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. Here's a map of the East Coast of the US with a 25 meter (82 feet) sea level rise
Edited on Sat Oct-10-09 08:11 PM by steven johnson



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC