Today we visit the Weddell Sea, which lies to the east of the Antarctic Peninsula. Like the rest of the Southern Ocean, the body of water that surrounds Antarctica, it is home to diverse ecosystems that are filled with unique and astonishing wildlife. And like oceans everywhere, the impacts of climate change are becoming more apparent.
As the world warms, its waters are warming, too. Increased temperatures have already led to changes in ocean life. For example, on the other side of the Peninsula, king crabs have invaded an area previously considered far too cold for their survival. The impact of the arrival of these predators, for the first time in millions of years, could be catastrophic for the surrounding ecosystem, which has evolved exotic and unique life forms that have no defenses against crabs.
Unfortunately, scientists are observing not only changes to the oceans' temperature but also to its chemistry. The Weddell Sea -- and the rest of the Southern Ocean -- is experiencing what scientists call ocean acidification. Currently, about a quarter of the carbon dioxide released each year by human activities is absorbed by the world's oceans. The Southern Ocean alone absorbs more than 40% of that due to the frigid temperatures of its waters. As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, the water becomes more acidic.
As one scientist described it to me, ocean acidification is the "osteoporosis" of the world's oceans. As the ocean acidifies, the exoskeletons of marine animals become brittle and frail, just as osteoporosis weakens the bones of humans. Acidification can also affect the nervous systems, blood circulation, and breathing of fish and other animals in the sea. In other parts of the world, acidification may cause tissue damage in economically important species of fish, threaten the survival of rare or endangered shellfish, and reduce the number of species in coral reefs. If left unchecked, this fundamental alteration to ocean chemistry has the potential to threaten the livelihood and food security of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide.
And, what does this mean for us? About 1 billion people in the world rely on fish and shellfish as their primary source of dietary protein. By one estimate, the effect of acidification on mollusks alone (animals such as oysters and clams) could cost the world tens of billions of dollars by the end of the century. Some researchers have called acidification "one of the most critical anthropogenic threats to marine life."
The climate crisis is a problem of multiple dimensions. Rising ocean temperatures alone have the potential to disrupt the web of life in the ocean. Acidifying oceans, a result of the same carbon dioxide pollution that is warming our planet, are magnifying the problem even further.
Cross-posted at the Climate Reality Blog.
Follow Al Gore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/algore
Between 1993 and 2003 not a single scientific peer reviewed paper on 'global climate change' rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). "75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis)." In other words, not a single scientist around the world - including all those skeptics we hear so much about - has even published evidence for a debate with real scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Rather than snarking at the messenger, if you have access to some, why not submit some proof to the scientific community?
1. reduce airplane travel by less traveling or traveling by land if distance allows this.
2. for short distances se a bicycle instead of car.
3. eat less meat or go Vegetarian all the way. AS YOU KNOW raising cattle and the meat production is a very big co2 producer, accoring to a study by the United Nations called LIFESTOCKS LONG SHADOW.
And NO mr Gore, lobbying for new internet domain names such as .ECO dont make the world green, it only lines your pockets with much money.
Oops, thats the little cynic in me.
Agreed, you are a cynic.
cyn·i·cal   /ˈsɪnɪkəl/ Show Spelled[sin-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. like or characteristic of a cynic; distrusting or disparaging the motives of others.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.
4. ( initial capital letter ) cynic ( def. 5 ) .
So what part of the acceepted standard to you find contempuous?
What did Al Gore do here besides alert us again about this problem?
Does he really need to tell you to ride a bike? Would you start riding a bike if he did?
How about a "Thank You" for all the positive work he has done to make this problem a priority in our society. Isn't that better, for your blood pressure if nothing else?
To give you a short reply, i agree with you, as many people do, that Al Gores efforts to make Global Warming a number one priority in our society, is priceless and very needed.
But NEXT thing, step two so to speak, is WHAT CAN WE DO.
Because many people feel frustrated if you dont give them a solution how to solve the problem, on an individual level as well as a more broader level.
So YEAH, to accept your own full responsibility for Global Warming, or talk about it and try to change yor lifestyle, that would be nice, wether you are Al Gore or a HF reader.
I mean, its all about the LIFESTYLE WE LIVE ,i hope you can agree with that.
So,,,,,,me mentioning reducing aiplane travel and reducing meat consumption all acts that contribute widely to global warming, isnt that what this article should do to us ? Make us talk about solutions ? Make us realise we should change our lifestyle, even if Al Gore isnt willing to change his lifestyle in favor of global warming, at least we, the 99% should consider reducing some lifestyle aspects of ourslelves.
The number of different confirmations of AGW are starggering, and truly worrying. Nevertheless, we still get a vile spray of denier lies every time a climate related article is posted.
I'm not a Climate Change denier by any means but there hasn't been a serious solution offered other than let's just raise taxes.
To achieve justice I will quote the German environmental minister "The ultimate objective would then be a per capita budget for greenhouse gas emissions, which would apply to every person on the planet. It's ultimately also a matter of justice." Al, i think you have eaten up your budget for a few life times.
Anthropogenic change = very very bad
Why? There are winners and losers all across the world in either scenario. The fear that it's changing too fast to accommodate adaptation implies that all natural changes were slow, but this is obviously not reflected by the facts either.
Obviously I care if the changes affect human life on this planet, but even then there are winners and losers, and the biggest losers are those who don't have energy, which is what is truly necessary to support the life of humanity on this planet.
The production of energy is a much bigger problem than this for human beings. The standard of living can almost be directly tied to this one factor.
Not at all. There are ancient changes to climate that happened very fast. It is the fact that they were so devastating to all life on the planet that makes the rapidity of this climate change so worrying. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction (the Great Dying), caused the extinction of 95-96% of the worlds species. We are descendants of the survivors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdied.shtml
The problem of energy production is important. The problem of possible extinction of our species due to burning fossil fuels is more important. That is why we must stop burning fossil fuels, and move to carbon neutral sources of energy.
I do not believe that living standards are tied to energy production as closely as you suggest. After all, America has been using more and more energy over the last 40 years, at the same time as the majority have felt their standard of living decline.
There are no carbon neutral sources of energy readily available that can replace fossil fuels. Most of those on your side actually recognize this. Those who are honest recognize there is no good solution for the problem without pain on the part of people. Of course, they assume it's a problem that needs a government solution, and government solutions always involve force and have unintended consequences.
On the standard of living issue, I have to say my standard of living is pretty good. I have a cell phone, HD TV, projector, 5 quad core PCs, a laptop, tablet, and various other gadgets along with other common amenities on a middle class salary with minimal debt. I doubt anyone in prior decades could make that claim while earning around the median income.
Have you read anything on the theory or is this just something you feel in your heart. If it is, it has nothing to do with science.
And remember when Al Gore's posts weren't so far towards the bottom of Huff Post?
CO2 is CO2.. period. The idea that you can tell where it comes from by it's "different chemical sidnature" is dillusional. If you can do this you should be notifying the journal of science not the HP as you have discovered a new chemical compound and if so,why have you been keeping this secret to yourself ???
1.The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
2.The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
3.The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
The Medieval happened in Europe. Hint, Europe is not the entire globe.
2.The Minoan Warming period had temperaturÂes that possibly exceeded current temperaturÂes by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
Once again, are you talking about the world? Read up!
"3.The previous interglaciÂal period, approximatÂely 130,000 years ago, had temperaturÂes in excess of 4°C versus current temperaturÂes, in spite of lower CO2 levels. "
How about a link?
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Did you miss the fact that Mueller, who's study was the largest reconstruction of temperature data in history came out and basically said Michael Mann got it right?
You need to expand your reading to the actual research instead of getting it from right wing cranks.
Meanwhile, it's cold summers in some places warm winters in others, and frequent and increasing extremes of both hot and cold world wide.