Ocean Report: Risk of Marine Extinctions Unprecedented in Human History

UPDATE 6/23/11 Outcome of IPCC meeting on Geoengineering:
The IPCC just wrapped up a high level "expert meeting" in Peru to explore "the scientific foundations for an assessment of geoengineering." In a press conference after the controversial meeting (which included representatives from the nascent geoengineering industry) the IPCC co-chairs made it clear they would not be making any recommendations to governments regarding research funding for the controversial technologies, governance models or the legality of experimentation.

Last week, 160 organizations from around the world sent an open letter to IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri expressing concerns about this IPCC meeting. Sivlia Ribeiro of watchdog ETC Group stated: "The IPCC has assured us it will go forward carefully in this work, and will not overstep its mandate by making governance recommendations. We will be closely following the process. Geoengineering is too dangerous to too many people and to the planet to be left in the hands of small group of so-called experts. Geoengineering should be an issue at the Rio+20 conference in June 2012."

A "deadly trio" of carbon-related ocean impacts (ocean acidification, warming, and oxygen depletion) may lead to global marine extinctions on a scale unprecedented in human history. This is one of the main conclusions of a new report by an international panel of marine scientists (see my previous post Ocean of Trouble for more details).

The panel's main findings were summarized as follows:

• The combination of stressors on the ocean is creating the conditions associated with every previous major extinction of species in Earth's history.

Further:

• The speed and rate of degeneration in the ocean is far faster than anyone has predicted.
• Many of the negative impacts previously identified are greater than the worst predictions.
• Although difficult to assess because of the unprecedented speed of change, the first steps to globally significant extinction may have begun with a rise in the extinction threat to marine species such as reef-forming corals.

International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)

According to one of the scientists, Professor Jelle Bijma of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, "the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is occurring faster than in the past 55 million years..." He also pointed out that, "Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon perturbations."

In this case, however, it is us doing the perturbing. Humans are currently conducting what amounts to a radical geo-engineering of the Earth's life-support system. Geo-engineering is defined as "the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment." Knowing what we do about the relationship between our excessive fossil fuel-driven CO2 emissions and climate change, we can no longer pretend that our impact on the planetary environment is accidental.

So it is with some irony that the release of this report coincides with a two-day meeting of IPCC experts to discuss geo-engineering as part of a "portfolio of response options to anthropogenic climate change."

Generally speaking, geo-engineering schemes fall into two categories: those which aim to lower temperature (think sunblock, but on a planetary scale), and those which aim to get CO2 out of the atmosphere (such as the 'fertilization' of the ocean with iron to increase CO2-absorbing plankton).

International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)

Whenever I hear of these sorts of schemes, I think of a Dr. Seuss book I used to read as a child -- The Cat in the Hat Comes Back. The self-indulgent cat gorges himself on pink cake in the bath, leaving behind a rosy ring in the tub. Every effort by his team of helper cats to clean up the mess simply causes the stain to spread further, until eventually the entire house and snowy yard has turned into a sickening sea of pink. Just in the nick of time, before the parents come home and the kids get busted, the tiniest cat pulls a out a magical "Voom" from his hat which miraculously cleans up the mess.

If only we had a Voom to clean up the twin problems of climate change and ocean meltdown, and we could put all those fossil fuels back in the hat. But since we don't and we can't, we must face three inevitable conclusions:

1. We need to end our 200-year-old addiction to fossil fuels, a habit which is dumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In 2010 we set a record -- emitting 30.6 gigatonnes of CO2. By conserving energy, using efficiency technologies, and fully replacing fossil fuels with clean renewable sources we can kick the habit. There are many scenarios that prove this is not some utopian vision, but a feasible undertaking that could be accomplished in the next few decades. It's a no-brainer -- the transformation is already underway, and lots of jobs are being created as a result. But governments must stop dragging their feet on measures which could rapidly accelerate this new energy revolution.
2. The best way to get existing CO2 out of the atmosphere is to increase the CO2-absorption capacity of natural ecosystems -- both on land and at sea. This means halting deforestation and overfishing, stopping the production and discharge of dangerous pollutants, and preventing habitat degradation, to name just a few examples. Perhaps the IPCC experts meeting will identify new methods of removing CO2 from the air without risking further harm to the environment.
3. As for geo-engineering, we can rule out right off the bat that any sunblock scheme will save the day, because these do nothing to address ocean acidification. Other schemes that tamper with Earth systems risk Cat in the Hat consequences which we have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to oversee. It's not for nothing that the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a de facto moratorium on geo-engineering (PDF).

As for me, I can't decide what's scarier: men in lab coats playing out their sci-fi fantasies (at least that's how I picture them), or the fact that there are top scientists who believe we may reach a point when such schemes will actually be needed to save human civilization.

What do you think...? Should we continue our indulgent fossil fuel habit assuming that scientists will actually find the "Vroom" before it's too late? Or do we just say 'No' to fossil fuels?

 

Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg

Comments

[ClimateHawk]

01:30 PM on 06/23/2011

"it's all about the plants"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725016

[Publicola]

06:49 PM on 06/21/2011

This bears repeating:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-----

Ocean Acidificat­ion ...

Roughly one-third of all CO2 released by human activities since preindustr­ial times has been absorbed by the sea... [causing] a 25 percent increase in [ocean] acidity...

Projection­s of future ocean chemistry and climate change indicate that, by the time atmospheri­c CO2 content doubles over its preindustr­ial value, there will be virtually no place left in the ocean that can sustain coral reef growth... Ocean acidificat­ion could also have dramatic consequenc­es for polar food webs... Overall, ocean acidificat­ion has the potential to alter marine ecosystems catastrophically...

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[SarahCuda2]

05:03 PM on 06/21/2011

Is the highest diversity of marine species found living in cold water or warm water?

[greendig]

01:57 PM on 06/21/2011

I think the climate component is being underplayed in the overall discussion about the report. I'm glad Kelly is pointing it out here. The report uses imagery like oil barrels at the bottom of the ocean and overfishing because these are compelling images. In reality climate change is the greatest instigator of all 3 effects -- warming, acidification, and de-oxygenation. But how do you photograph "climate change" -- it's hard to show in a picture the invisible spectre of CO2 emissions.

[SarahCuda2]

05:05 PM on 06/21/2011

What makes warming 'bad'? The greatest diversity of marine species live in the warmest waters.

[logicdog]

11:32 PM on 06/21/2011

Read the article beyond the headline, please. It does explain the consequences of a warming climate trend.

[RDenning]

10:12 AM on 06/22/2011

As our early ancestors discovered, fire is good and bad.

[Eddie Scissorpaws]

10:26 AM on 06/21/2011

I believe it's too late to turn the ship around. that is, to get every nation on earth to agree to curb its lifestyle, even to slow it down, spend anything at all on alternate energy sources which may be cost-prohibitive compared to nations who continue with business as usual for twenty years; to not exploit something, not consume everything - is virtually impossible. The human animal isn't made that way, has never once behaved that way. We will be killing each other off over scarce water and oil before we'll not drill a well. Harder than a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

[LauraJBailey]

10:19 AM on 06/21/2011

I have patented a system for a Mechanically Produced Thermocline (GOOGLE) to alleviate the effects of Climate Change. My purpose is to increase the function of the biological pump of the Ocean. The only way to fix the elevated levels of CO2 is by accelerating the biological activity in the Ocean. Cold water promotes Phyto-plankton growth and causes CO2 to enter solution as dissolved CO2 instead of Carbonic Acid.

[SarahCuda2]

05:27 PM on 06/21/2011

"Cold water promotes Phyto-plan­kton growth"

NUTRIENTS are the main factor not temperature. More nutrients are found in the colder waters simply due to the ocean currents (and maybe also because there is less animal life around to eat it?). The most nutrients are coming from land

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg Note that while there are vast fertile areas in the Arctic - there are nonetheless fertile areas in very warm waters too.

There are very warm waters with very little nutrients like the "Sargasso Sea" (why the water is so blue around Bermuda) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146631361900454 but then there are also warm waters teaming with marine life phyto-plan­kton and on up off the coast of Guyana (nutrients from the Amazon) or the Persian Gulf, or the west caost of Africa, (Sahara dust), etc. Those warm waters also have FAR more diversity of species than cold waters. (You know, like, 'tropical fish')

[Robco1]

05:44 PM on 06/21/2011

Still trying to spread your disinformation while avoiding the questions below?

Why does this memo from Big Tobbacco's PR firm outlining how they plan to export their science denial model to the fossil fuel industry read just like a memo from the American Petroleum Institute written just four years later?

The 1994 TASSC Memo: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API Memo: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_%281998%29

Bonus question: who bankrolled the founding of the Cato Institute? Why?

We're all waiting for an answer...

[This American]

09:33 AM on 06/21/2011

What is "shocking" about this report , and this echo is the lengths to which the swarm of parasitic NGO's will go to in manufacturing pure propaganda such as this and pawning it off to a gullible public as the latest science. This is a sophisticated disinformation campaign. The shocking report wasn't even put together by scientists, it was organized, paid for, and disseminated by "activists" who are doing the bidding of those interested in world government and those business interests that are expecting to cash in on the AGW hoax. See more at this link.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/a-deep-sea-mystery.html

[RDenning]

10:38 AM on 06/21/2011

This campaign is so sophisticated that they have somehow convinced 97% of scientists that climate change is real. This argument is ludicrous. The real money is on the other side. You may not be old enough to remember how tobacco companies used the same tactics to try to prevent anyone believing there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. They spent a lot of money on propaganda. Oil and coal companies are doing the same thing now. If you are so concerned about world government, why don't you concern yourself with trade agreements and the WTO? Those are a much greater threat to sovereignty.

[SarahCuda2]

05:35 PM on 06/21/2011

Tell us about this REAL MONEY? Does $30 BILLION sound 'real' enough to you? That's how much of our tax money has gone into perpetuating this hoax over the last ~20 years. It's up to over 2 BILLION a year now; just 'studying the problem'. You ~think~ the oil industry has THAT kind of money to counter public opinion?

With THAT much going into it is there ANY wonder why none of parasites living off of it never seem to conclude anything and have to keep studying? If any one of them declared there was really no problem they'd be out of job tomorrow.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

[Publicola]

01:11 PM on 06/21/2011

TA: "...manufactur­ing pure propaganda such as this..."

Yawn.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ocean Acidification

In addition to its climate impacts, CO2 released by human activities can influence ecosystem dynamics in aquatic systems by altering water chemistry—in particular, the reaction of CO2 with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which lowers (acidifies) ocean pH. Roughly one-third of all CO2 released by human activities since preindustrial times has been absorbed by the sea...; consequently, ocean pH has decreased by approximately 0.1 units since preindustrial times. While this might not seem like a large change, it actually represents a 25 percent increase in acidity, because pH is measured on a logarithmic scale....

Because pH interacts with temperature to determine saturation levels for various related chemical species, cold-water ocean areas are projected to become undersaturated with calcium carbonate (CaCO3)—a key building block for the shells of many marine organisms—as early as 2050 (Orr et al., 2005). A broad array of marine species produce CaCO3 skeletons during at least part of their life cycle, so ocean acidification threatens nearly all ocean ecosystems by altering calcification rates while simultaneously increasing the rate of CaCO3 dissolution (Yates and Halley, 2006). Physiological studies suggest wide variations in the ability of organisms to cope with such changes (Doney et al., 2009).

continued...

[SarahCuda2]

05:39 PM on 06/21/2011

Less than 3% of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere right now is coming from human activity. So if the pH of the ocean drops by .05 then our contribution was .0015 pH

Not exactly what any reasonable person would call a big change in alkalinity.

[Publicola]

05:42 PM on 06/21/2011

TO THE MODERATORS - why was the following censored?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...continued

Acidification is especially challenging for coral reefs, which are defined by the CaCO3 skeletons of corals. Acidification, in tandem with elevated temperatures and other human stresses, decreased calcification rates on the Great Barrier Reef by 21 percent between 1988 and 2003 (Cooper et al., 2008). Numerous controlled experiments under elevated pH now complement these field observations (e.g., Doney et al., 2009). Projections of future ocean chemistry and climate change indicate that, by the time atmospheric CO2 content doubles over its preindustrial value, there will be virtually no place left in the ocean that can sustain coral reef growth (Cao and Caldeira, 2008; Silverman et al., 2009). Ocean acidification could also have dramatic consequences for polar food webs since several prominent species at the base of the food web may be unable to form shells—including species that salmon and other iconic species depend on for survival. Overall, ocean acidification has the potential to alter marine ecosystems catastrophically, but the details and consequences of these impacts are only beginning to be understood (see also NRC, 2010f).

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[Dredd]

08:09 AM on 06/21/2011

RDenning,

True.

There are five or so major problems with the environmental pollution (including overpopulation) that are having and will continue to have a catastrophic effect.

[Zachary Burton]

06:23 AM on 06/21/2011

Where has all the carbon dioxide gone?
Long time gassing
Where has all the carbon dioxide gone?
Long time no snow
Where has all the carbon dioxide gone?
Into the oceans
every (mega, giga, tera) ton
When will they ever learn?
Maybe when the children fry and burn

With regrets
ZB

[Overtone]

01:19 AM on 06/21/2011

IRONICALLY, A THREAT LARGER THAN TERRORISM CAN TURN NUCLEAR PLANTS INTO DANGEROUS SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVITY.

Attacking that problem effectively can begin to replace fossil fuels much faster than might be believed.

See www.aesopinstitute.org for some data on how and why.

As the peril is better understood, cheap green energy is likely to accelerate. It is being born at this moment. For example, diesel for $20/barrel from sunlight and bacteria.

Moving Beyond Oil and other posts on the Aesop website explain a bit about revolutionary breakthroughs that can dramatically change the energy landscape.

[SarahCuda2]

05:43 PM on 06/21/2011

'cheap green energy' - now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. If green energy was cheap we'd ALL be using it already and WITHOUT government 'incentives' that takes money out of my pocket and puts it into the pocket of someone else who kowtows to this hoax..

[acollins1123]

06:56 PM on 06/22/2011

I would say it's not a hoax. The Earth goes in climate cycles but it is the rate at which we are warming that is very alarming and unsustainable to many animals (most notably Amphibians and tropical life). A very large majority of scientists subscribe to human-caused climate change.

And I disagree with your statement that green energy can't be cheap. In some cases, it's simply stunted by a lack of support in Congress or lobbying by oil companies. I can cite one example of cheap clean energy that never got off the ground but is now being given a second chance in some countries: Thorium nuclear power.

Now, you may say, "Oh nuclear power, how can THAT be environmentally-friendly and/or cheap". Well, I'll tell you.

--Thorium carries a drastically-reduced risk for nuclear proliferation.
--Produces 10-10,000 times less waste than traditional nuclear fuel (can also burn through existing nuclear waste)
--Does not require enrichment
--Incredibly abundant (3-4 times more abundant than uranium), even in the United States! (Enough to last for 1000 years at our current energy intake levels)
--Reactors are safer

Granted, there has been a few false starts over the years, and there is still some debate about the feasibility of some of the reactor technology, but I think that the benefits are enough so that it's worth looking in to, especially since several large countries such as India and China are already doing research on it. Don't you think?

[Bogstomper2]

12:48 AM on 06/21/2011

Just to see how deniers cherry pick their data, follow SarahCudah's link a little ways down the page. She makes a big deal out of a study that covers 1982 to 1999, but she didn't bother to mention a similar paper that covers 2000 to 2009, a paper that's listed just a little farther down the page she linked.

You need to watch for this with these folks. Using out-of-date data is a creationist trick that goes back decades.

Hello, deniers...

[Bigjon87121]

12:12 AM on 06/21/2011

So what will happen if we cannot avert this mass extinction?

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:14 AM on 06/21/2011

We'll all die.

[RDenning]

11:01 AM on 06/21/2011

We'll all die anyway. However, if we all die at once, no one else will live.

[Bigjon87121]

11:37 AM on 06/21/2011

How/ why?

[MuckyPup]

08:40 PM on 06/20/2011

I find it very interesting that amongst all the debate, no-one seems to have taken on board the idea that you can actually REDUCE the amount of energy you use. Is it really that difficult to turn the lights off, walk or bike instead of drive those short distances if you are physically able, unplug appliances, or keep your home a little warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter? Is your life going to become empty and meaningless if you use a bit less energy while we figure this mess out? Lots of little changes can have a huge cumulative affect.

[dharmadhatuzoo]

07:14 AM on 06/21/2011

We are like goldfish who will keep on eating and eating until we die.

[aligatorhardt]

07:48 PM on 06/22/2011

Here is a report from a small business that was able to cut power consumption in half with ordinary thoughtful actions.  How One Small Business Cut Its Energy Use and Costs by Tom Bowman: Yale Environment 360

[MuckyPup]

07:47 PM on 06/23/2011

Thank you for that.

[Micheal Johnson]

08:26 PM on 06/20/2011

Unfortunately I don't think anything is going to be accomplished too little too late The good news -one can look at it this way-is that we have made it through five extinctions so why not six. Who knows maybe next time around we'll find something else to use.

[Jim Milks]

09:20 PM on 06/20/2011

Life has made it through five extinctions, yes. However, in each of those extinctions, the dominant life forms on the planet didn't pull through. And who just happens to be the dominant life form this time around? Uh oh.

[ConfuciusSay-]

12:11 AM on 06/21/2011

We're probably the only species smart enough to work out what's happening over the last 5 times- but we lack the capability to save ourselves. We shall not be around that much longer.

[tc71087]

08:11 PM on 06/20/2011

Say no to Fossil Fuels!

[SarahCuda2]

06:25 PM on 06/21/2011

You go ahead and say 'no' if it makes you feel better; it will help lower the price for me!