State Of The Ocean: 'Shocking' Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress

If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.

The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.

“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."

The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.

According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.

The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.

A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.

The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."

"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."

Comments

[Entropy113]

11:53 AM on 08/12/2011

I have posted to this effect before, but it amazes me how many ignorant, poorly educated, scientifically illiterate morons there are who like to act like they are smarter than people with specialty degrees IN THIS FIELD. Yeah, idiot, its a worldwide conspiracy between people from all nations and backrounds to increase grant money from the US government. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze, and you ignorance never lets the rest of us forget exactly why our country is now 39th in the world in scientific literacy rates.

[odoug]

06:12 PM on 07/30/2011

CONCERNING OFFICIAL CLIMATE REPORTS AND SKEPTICS:

The NIPCC (NO RELATION TO IPCC) claims to have "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares": http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html

-The problem is... the NIPCC only seems to have 19 scientists: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?_r=1&ex=1362459600&en=0e42e2e8f8d7f2b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

-Apparently, the remaining 481 scientists are proponents of AGW who *were not aware that the NIPCC had hijacked their names (Is that legal?! It's certainly not ethical): http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-heartland-institute/

-And it turns out that the NIPCC is actually... the Heartland Institute, who push a TeaParty agenda of total deregulation and privatization of natural resources. Good friends of Philip Morris, Exxon Mobil, and the Koch brothers (to name just few): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[givemtheirwish]

11:29 AM on 07/11/2011

On the alarmist front; I loved the Steve Goddard post "Scientific Bullsh!te Deepest In At Least 2,100 Years"

Global warming alert as sea level rise said to be fastest rate for 2,100 years

Published Date: 21 June 2011
By John von Radowitz
Global warming is causing sea levels to rise at a faster rate today than at any time in the past 2,100 years, according to new research.

Scientists used the fossils left by tiny marine animals to record two millennia of sea levels along the US Atlantic coast.

They found a pattern of sea level change that was consistent with warming and cooling climate.

Blaming this on CO2 is complete crap. Sea level rise along the East coast has been fixed for 100 years. In New England there is little to no sea level rise over the last 40 years. Sea level on the US Pacific Coast is not rising at all.

If CO2 was the cause, we would have expected to see a sharp rise after 1950, when atmospheric CO2 began to rise quickly. By contrast, sea level rise rates along the Atlantic coast have slowed since 1950.

[cavekarst]

03:15 AM on 07/09/2011

The last extinction event dropped dead everything over 55 pounds. Those best protected
were underground, didn't get out much, and survived years of marginal existance. I have
resources in that regard, and the happy expectation of being encased within snow white
calicite crystal (just like Carib' people have been found under Yucatan), if I don't escape.

[givemtheirwish]

01:00 PM on 07/04/2011

Wow, that makes a pleasant change. Alarmist cr@p doesn't take a holiday.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
Congrats to Dr. Rogers. He manages to include many of the alarmist tenets.
*Serious situation
*Requires immediate attention
*Dramatic consequences for humankind (even remembered not to use mankind - kudos)
*Mention our children & of course, future generations.

They seem to have left of the most important bit - "& just increase our grant money by $20m & we'll manufacture a consensus forthwith".

Good to see alchemy is making a comeback.

[Shan Wells]

11:01 AM on 07/11/2011

I notice that in your rebuttal, you cite no scientific sources, make no scientific arguments, and postulate no reason for 97% of the world's climate scientists to agree, other that they are all in cahoots to fatten their wallets.

Wow. You are impressive.

[givemtheirwish]

11:21 AM on 07/11/2011

Ah yes, the infamous " 97% of the world's "climate scientists"" aka ALCHEMISTS

Where exactly do you get the figure of 97%????

I'm sure it's just as scientific as the other Denier (that AGW / ACC is a bust) nonsense.

p.s. Yep, I know, the science is settled :)

[singsingsing]

07:30 AM on 07/14/2011

givemtheirwish - Bla Bla Bla Bla- Me thinks thou doest deny ignorantly. Have you received your subsintance check from EXXONmobil yet this month? Your syruppy disgusted words cut NO MUSTARD over here. If the 97% of the scientific community are spitting out a long line of BS who speaks your truth? And why would any sane person take the word of 3% over 97%?

[givemtheirwish]

10:08 AM on 07/14/2011

Dear Sing Sing - always great to hear from an acolyte. Ah, Tea Leaf Reader's favorite 97% figure. It's like saying 97% of acolytes who prostrate themselves at the alter of astrology believe in AGW. REALLY..........
AGW remains a bust. As per the recent Pew Research Poll merely 32% of the folks believe in Global Warming (wonder what they'd say about AGW - LOL).
BUT, SCREAM it louder Sing Sing & I'm sure it'll make it real................still LOL

[singsingsing]

09:08 AM on 07/15/2011

"givemtheirwish" You might want to check out the Climate Change tab today (7/15) under the headline "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Deniers Science". Thanks to Greenpeace you have some more denying to do, only this time please stay on point. Answer WHY Dr. Soon felt he had to lie about a cool million from EXXON,Koch Institue and Southern Company. And one other thing since Dr. Soon is one of the 3% of scientists you believe and is now fully discredtited, that means I have 98% on my side instead of the afore agreed upon 97%. And another thing, you cite a PEW poll saying 32% of Americans agree with your denial stance. Since Faux News and Rush's "dittoheads" have been SCREAMING your point of view for over 10 years now, and everyone knows you conservatives are maxed out at 23% of America, that means the 10 years of lies from the Faux and Rush viewpoint has only resulted in a net gain for you deniers of 9% over the past 10 years. Why is that? At this rate it will only take another 40 or 50 years for your folks to get to 50% of America. So stop BLA BLA BLAing and Get To Work.

[recycle2011]

10:25 AM on 07/04/2011

Thanks for writing about this. Glad there are still some people like you who value our world's oceans. http://youtu.be/qQUECrYE2bY

[chrisd3]

08:32 AM on 06/28/2011

Nature is one of the world's two most respected and prestigious peer-reviewed science journals.

Not surprising, given some of your earlier comments, that you appear to be unaware of this.

[sawdustking]

09:57 PM on 06/27/2011

Why are these disasters always "impending"?

For those of you who don't know how the carbon cycle works, these hypoxic and anoxic "dead zones" in the oceans are how nature sequesters carbon and makes oil and coal. The organisms that die and fall into these zones cannot be consumed by other organisms and their carbon cannot be recombined with oxygen and exhaled. After being buried for a few million years they are pressure cooked into oil. These zones have always existed and those of you who are concerned about AGW should welcome the prospect of their expansion.

[gallon]

09:21 AM on 06/28/2011

" . . . those of you who are concerned about AGW should welcome the prospect of their expansion. "

That makes absolutely no sense. Care to elaborate?

[Holymolly]

03:52 PM on 06/28/2011

With my brains I grasped your notion instantly. Fanned and faved.

[sawdustking]

08:17 PM on 06/28/2011

They tell us that carbon stays in the atmosphere for decades. Ever wonder where it goes when it leaves the atmosphere? It becomes biomass. Plants make it into sugar and protein, animals eat the plants and it becomes animals. The more atmospheric CO2 the faster plants grow and the more food there is for animals so more of them exist.

However when a plant or animal dies it is consumed by other oxygen breathing organisms. It's carbon is used for energy and recombined with oxygen and returned to the atmosphere. When a plant or animal dies and falls into an anoxic zone there is no oxygen so it's body can't be consumed and it's carbon is sequestered until man or a volcano brings it up back to the earth's surface.

The goal is to get rid of the carbon in the atmosphere isn't it?

[Taoistattack]

06:10 AM on 06/29/2011

You don't understand what dead zones means! If you don't have oxygen you get different chemical reactions. Biomass for example is transformed in Methan- more worse than CO2. Also you get Hydrogen sulfide- you know how that smells? You would like a planet smelling like foul eggs?

Also you have in anoxic Waters different ecosystems, with different bacteria. A quite common branch of anoxic bacteria generates N2O- is about 300 times more effective in trapping heat than CO2.

Actually i'm a little sad about people like you who sounds like they know something but in the end only talk senseless nonsens. If our Oceans become anoxic, than our whole atmosphere will change, like it allways did when the oceans where changing.

Greetings and next time please inform yourself before writing such nonsens or was that your goal?.

[sawdustking]

06:36 PM on 06/29/2011

So where does oil come from then?

[Cindy Bishop]

04:10 PM on 06/27/2011

my basic question: even if you are skeptical of these scientists, what are You doing "just in case" they are right?! Look around you, how does your community's frenetic consumption impact your _local_ environment? Eg, strip malls, traffic, smog, the garbage spilling over the dumpsters, obese kids.. How can you deny these problems, and that such local problems wouldn't logically aggregate to a really BIG problem if not now, then at some point? We have finite resources. Do the math.. might be hard to realize living in this country, but the rest of the world don't get their shelves restocked everyday - if every week. If you are denying these facts And not being a responsible caretaker of this planet, then you are worse than stupid.

[Holymolly]

10:54 PM on 06/27/2011

I used to recycle before it was cool to do so and I've been around, been called the wonderer before. Maybe it's the messangers that do not convince me of the upcoming dooms. I heard it from some of the religious about all the crack pot dooms then I once witnessed a bunch of flower children crying histerical around a tree. I see the left and the right fight with equal intensity to justify their agenda......and they both have an agenda, I'm not blind. Then, I hear that the overwhelming amount of scientists........wait......what overwhelming amount of scientist? I also want to know the source of that list, but all I hear is....."the overwhelming amount of scientist." So, in concluding, I have to conclude that this overwhelming amount of scientists does not exist.......what really exists is the sole scientist that is presumed to be on el Rushbo's side. Centrist here.

[Pharos]

09:23 AM on 06/28/2011

Just what is my agenda? My first job as an assistant professor of physics was at $27,500 (nine month salary). At that time the very best students were being offered in the low $50,000 (private industry, yearly salary). A decade later some of my colleagues were being offered $200,000 to go use their math skills on Wall Street (with bonuses higher than their salaries). My salary had just about kept up with inflation. Grants sometimes pay for summer salaries (that would have been 3 months at my starting salary - you do the math). Do you see any financial incentive to lie about AGW? Given the above picture, can you point out any financial incentive for me to believe that the science of AGW is overwhelming? As I have said before, I know a lot of scientists. I have never met one that did not agree with AGW. If there were any significant disagreement in the science community, statistically speaking, I should have met one by now.

[jimboy71]

03:34 PM on 06/28/2011

Your classic mistake is to think your lifespan is the measure of all things. We've been on the track to the washed out bridge for a while, and it will take us a while longer to get there. Don't you care about those who will come after just a little?

[Zwaan]

12:12 PM on 06/26/2011

Greed, cruelty and callousness will prohibit the developing of new techniques that would stop the pollution of the seas, soil and air. Oh, I forgot, ignorance.

[Holymolly]

09:21 AM on 06/29/2011

Polludents are every where, I'm scared.......someone hold me! ')

[kadellagroove]

03:10 PM on 06/25/2011

The people on the side of global warming are simply looking at the wealth of data compiled over decades by thousands of scientists from all over the world and applying logic and reason and coming to the conclusion that climate change is real and humans are causing it. if new data came out in overwhelming numbers that challenged this and said "pollution is actually going to save the planet" it would be hard to swallow but as people who understand and love science we would have no choice but to start considering that and amending our conclusion.

The problem is that when you believe that all of science is a hoax, or that it violates some predetermined world view you have based on emotions, what your parents said, or God, you have intentionally blinded yourself and you have taken away your own ability to amend your ideas based on evidence in front of you. that is why your opinion is absolutely invalid and people like you should not be heard on the public stage when it comes to decisions being made.

science can't exists without skeptisism. but when thousands of scientists from every type of science with no unifying reason to lie come out with report after report for decades saying essentially the same thing (that humans beings are having a negative effect on the environment) then its not healthy skepticism that prevents you from listening its total and utter cynicism and ignorance.

[The last sane American]

03:56 PM on 06/25/2011

Shame that a missing comma in the last sentence deflated your entry. But that appears to have been a Freudian slip, in that the the increasing acceptance of the "consensus" science of the end of the 20th century has given way to the questioning of a science that can only assume Armageddon,and finds it necessary decry any dissent.

We need to husband all the resources of this planet as we become the even more dominant species. But we need to deal with it in an intelligent way, not one that seeks solutions that make little or no sense. And we need to more carefully examine the geological record of this planet to understand its prior adjustments to imposed pressures.

[kadellagroove]

04:10 PM on 06/25/2011

I'm not following your first paragraph. Maybe you can rephrase and explain better. its the double "the" that is deflating the whole thing for me.

As for your second paragraph, sure... but what are you really saying? what solutions make little or no sense?

People often use the word "consensus" as if its a bad word in reference to when people thought the world was flat or some such example. but its not the same world as it was then. today consensus isn't the consensus because of the bible or some mythical belief system. its the consensus because of tried and testes, experimentation that has been preformed over large areas of time by many many different people. its the consensus today for very different reasons than scientific claims were the consensus 2000 years ago. theres no real basis in seeing something that is accepted by and large as suspicious purely because it is the "consensus".

[FrankLuchan]

01:23 PM on 06/27/2011

..."no unifying reason to lie".....

Hmmm, you mean getting their next grant funded (or they get canned via 'publish or perish) by governments and environmental groups who will only fund research whose thesis is that CO2 is at the core of climate change. You mean that "no unifying reason to lie"...?

Show me any grant that is getting funded by any government or environment body today whose thesis is "...Climate Change is being driven by natural variability and water vapor...."

I'll wait.

[jimboy71]

03:46 PM on 06/27/2011

Only someone completely unaware of the stupendous amount of time researchers spend (up to 40%) filling out grant applications and the PITTANCE that they remit with respect to the cost of research would be so absurd as to think that researchers are motivated by cash.

If this were the case, most would be shi//ing for corporations, not working for the betterment of science and mankind.

Your thesis is absurd, because we already know very well what role water vapour plays in warming.

You might as well try to get money to research the notion that tumours play a role in cancer.

The question isn't nuanced, and it is already understood, apparently, by everyone except you.

[kadellagroove]

03:48 PM on 06/27/2011

Your not understand how scientific grants work. no one gives grants with a purpose. they give grants to do research no matter what the conclusion is. so, even if I skewered for days, sifting through thousands of pages of documents (by the way, what your asking is for me to basically do the amount of work a doctoral thesis would require) I would never find a grant specifically given with that exact phrase just like I would never find one with the phrase "climate change is being driven by humans, go." that is the conclusion. the grant comes before the conclusion.

but here, just to give you some red meat...

http://www.rmets.org/activities/awards/grants/index.php
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=ERE&ord=rcnt
http://www.cfcas.org/grants-awarded-2/
http://www.cfcas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/CFCAS-Budget-2011-Response-Mar-23.pdf
http://www.egu.eu/

thats a list of just a few of the contributors of grants that are involved with the IPCC. not a single one of their grants is politically biased in any way. they are just there for scientists who wish to do research.

now whats actually telling is the amount of grant money given by oil companies every year to research that consistently states that global warming isn't real... hmmm... thats funny.

[dmgrush2]

02:21 PM on 06/25/2011

Stop The Conservative-Progressive Bickering! The REAL POINT: human caused or not, global warming or not, conservation makes logical sense. If I could manufacture my product for half the energy and materials cost, wouldn't I want to do that? It is good business. The problem seems to be short term thinking and just plain greed and selfishness. (I want it now. I want it cheap. I don't care if what I do effects anyone else). If my widget company spends the necessary money to manufacture more efficiently, my stock prices will go down temporarily. Apparently, that is VERY BAD (conservatives) in the short term. But in the long term, it is quite GOOD (progressives). I make more profit. If it weren't for greed and selfishness, we wouldn't need regulations either. A minority of people mess things up for everyone else. So stop whining about "It Is" or "It Isn't." That is "spoiled baby" behavior. Lastly, things like global warming, current and historic carbon dioxide levels, ocean acidification and fish depletion are measurable and observable. (thermometers, ancient ice cores, ph test kit, drift net catches). Even if one could prove that we are not causing environmental problems, the question is should we try make improvements anyway? Get your "I have to be right" ego out of this. Conservation is about "doing the right thing." and not being selfish or shortsighted. That is good Judeo-Christian behavior no matter which side of the political universe you are on.

[The last sane American]

03:58 PM on 06/25/2011

Cut to the chase. You have it right there - "conservati­on makes logical sense".

[jimboy71]

04:42 PM on 06/25/2011

At least we can agree on that.

[gallon]

09:33 AM on 06/28/2011

I think for the first time ever, you say something that I agree with. Pity it wasn't your own original thinking.

[UKVisitor]

08:03 AM on 06/28/2011

dmgrush you make a lot of sense.

[asiclilpup]

01:06 PM on 06/25/2011

We have so abused Mother Earth that we now fail to correct all the wrongs. I wont give up and throw my hands in the air in defeat and surrender, but it has passed the point of just scary. Time to let scientists and environmentalists to take a big lead on this. Say NO to praying for the sky genie to fix our home.

[GaiasChild]

11:21 AM on 06/25/2011

we've had dead zones off oregon coast for some time. not being scientist, my understanding is that the temperature can rise a very slight degree and create areas lacking oxygen where everything dies so there are piles of shells and bones on the seabed. how can we not know we have so despoiled our habitat that our entire species is at risk. it's like how can we not know that roundup causes birth defects . . . doesn't it also kill all the wee critters that are working the garden and living there too? at least the Earth has survived all the earlier extinctions. Let's hope she can survive us and ours.

[Cayce58]

10:14 PM on 06/25/2011

We are at risk. At 2 degrees warming the bacterial action on the 9 billion tons of carbon in permafrost will have to be factored into present CO2 production. At 3 degrees a study done by 8 groups in 3 countries (because the Am university that did it 1st hated the result)says the carbon cycle reverses. Again, bacterial action, this time on the 1.9 gigatons of carbon in soil, will outpace the ability of plant life to turn it back to oxygen. The earth goes to 6 degrees. Nothing can stop it. We are smart and resiliant, but at 6 degrees extinction is a remote possibility.

[Cindy M Brito]

11:00 PM on 06/25/2011

We are at risk, I dont care what the deniers say. Studies have been done and are being done today that show there is a delicate system in the oceans like the effects of anoxia on the plankton that provide 50% of the earths oxygen. We are headed toward unchartered territory, the Earth has rebounded in the past, but it took thousands if not millions of years to recover. They have fossils to prove the oceans were almost without oxygen and 90% of species in water and on Earth died out.

[Holymolly]

10:07 PM on 06/26/2011

Dija hear about the sun spots in this here universe? They says, accordin to scientits, the earth is goanna cool a bits, thems sun spots dimmed, I must be stupid or somethin does it mean wese a goanna turn to ice? Wuts this about COE2 production? Lols, I produces methane.

[BrentW1]

09:32 PM on 06/24/2011

It's amazing how liberals have ZERO skepticism when it comes to *any* "shocking" report concerning the environment. Hook, line, sinker - every time.

[logicdog]

11:35 PM on 06/24/2011

Is 0% skepticism better or worse than 100% cynicism?

[GaiasChild]

11:22 AM on 06/25/2011

not to mention the foolish denial of the Biblicans

[fds]

03:42 AM on 06/25/2011

Why should people be skeptical about scientific reports, documents prepared by and peer-reviewed by specialized scientists in specific fields?

That people should be immediately skeptical of such documents is alarming. If there is error inside the reports, they are weeded out by scientists before the documents are published. These errors are not discovered by commoners who have doubts about their accuracy. The peer-review process nabs them because the process is rigorous, and it's especially ruthless if data claims are either unable to be verified or are disproved upon scrutiny.

Why should there be skepticism in something as iron-clad as science? Science is all about the search for knowledge, and science steps on its own toes constantly--new discoveries of one subject call into question older discoveries. It's called learning. Don't be skeptical of learning.

[UKVisitor]

09:07 AM on 06/25/2011

Because we've been here before, so many many times.
Write an article predicting doom because people are too materialistic and numbskulls fall over themselves to agree with it. nasty streak of misanthropy in many environmentalist I think.

[BrentW1]

09:24 AM on 06/25/2011

In many cases the peer review is a sham because the scientists never let anyone outside of their Groupthink do an official review.

I actually reviewed the report and it only contains assertions and recommendations for new government monitoring and controls. There is no specific data in the report to back up the assertions, not even one specific example. A person would have to review a myriad of other referenced reports to get at the data. Is that how the scientists think they can influence the thinking of people, by not making credible information readily available ?