Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
Raffi Cavoukian
Ron Dembo

GET UPDATES FROM Ron Dembo
 

The Ocean: A Barometer for Mass Extinction

Posted: 12/31/11 10:59 AM ET

Early in December I was sitting in the middle of Milne Bay, off the coast of Papua New Guinea, eating my breakfast. To my left at the table was Charlie Veron, one of the world's most preeminent scientists on extinction. We were on our way to see ocean vents where pure carbon dioxide is leaking from the ocean floor -- a reminder that we are sitting on the edge of a ring of fire, one of the most active volcanic areas of the world.

It is always true that the future is here for us to see. We only have to look for it.

It is a scientific fact that the oceans are acidifying at an alarming rate and the impact of this will be profound. By looking at ocean vents and seeing what happens to the coral around them, we have a crystal ball for the future. The acidity around ocean vents mimics what will happen to all reefs if the current rate of acidification continues. The ocean is where life began and is the canary in the coalmine for mass extinctions.

Charlie's work has shown that the last four mass extinctions on earth were linked to changes that preceded them in the oceans. By examining the history of oceans we know how mass extinctions occurred and how evolution proceeded. Moreover, we can get clues from the past as to how the earth will evolve.

He paints a picture of reefs covered in algae, of molluscs -- which are one-third of all biomass in the poles -- unable to grow their shells, of monoculture coral reefs, and lots of seagrass everywhere. Not to mention a huge proliferation of jellyfish. He says that we are sitting on top of the "headwaters of biodiversity": From here life flows to the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, the North and South. It is from here that life extinct in one part of the world can be regenerated and flow to the rest of the world.

This might all sound like science fiction, but it is actually objective science. Here are the facts: The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher today than it has been for the last million years. The oceans absorb a large part of the carbon dioxide we generate and most of this occurs in colder water (just think of how the carbon dioxide in your soft drink bubbles off at higher temperatures). This causes ocean acidification and already has resulted in a 30 per cent scientifically measured increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Back at the breakfast table, Katharina Fabricius, a world expert on ocean acidification who was sitting to my right, showed us how CO2 bubbling through coral actually eats away at the skeleton of entire reefs. We filled a bunch of bottles covering the breakfast table with samples taken from the area around these vents. There are also tiles, which will be left here to collect coral growth and compare it to reefs close by where there is no carbon bubbling out of the earth.

Up until now, scientists have been bringing samples to their labs and testing their responses to CO2. Today, the organisms will be tested in their own habitat. The indigenous elders say that they remember the vents bubbling when they were young children, so we know that coral in this area has been exposed to CO2 for at least 70 years. This provides researchers with a way of testing their hypotheses over long periods.

Branching coral grows faster than massive coral, but is more sensitive to environmental changes. Very few coral species can handle the growing acidity. There is one species that does, Porites coral, and it will be the winner. We can expect coral monoculture when the oceans get more acidic, as has happened before. And because this species does not provide a good home for other marine life, we will see it disappear. We will also see very healthy seagrass with nothing growing on it, looking like a beautiful golf course in the middle of the ocean.

The moral of the story is there will be winners and losers -- more losers than winners.

Peeking 50 years into the future at our current rate of burning fossil fuels, we see extinction of many species and a few sites in the world where diversity of coral will be preserved. We see a world of vastly reduced biodiversity and man's role in all of this will be uncertain. We are truly gobbling up our children's world at an alarming rate.

These scientists are adamant: Once our atmosphere and oceans are acidified there is no way to reverse it, except over millennia.

We need to do what we can to stop it now.

 

Follow Ron Dembo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zerofootprint

Early in December I was sitting in the middle of Milne Bay, off the coast of Papua New Guinea, eating my breakfast. To my left at the table was Charlie Veron, one of the world's most preeminent scient...
Early in December I was sitting in the middle of Milne Bay, off the coast of Papua New Guinea, eating my breakfast. To my left at the table was Charlie Veron, one of the world's most preeminent scient...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 53
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael J OConnell
Enduring curiosty and quest for rationality
04:29 PM on 01/02/2012
Given the current state of the global economy, leaders are very unlikely to push for the required reductions in climate gasses. They place a higher value on economic growth. This is extremely short-term thinking. I keep being reminded of the fact that once a species is gone, its gone and once we engage positive feedback loops we cannot turn them off. Finally, climate scientists tend to be conservative in their estimates. Considering that we keep replacing them with more aggressive ones based upon realities or more recent observations I would suggest that we have far less time, if any to turn things around.
11:11 PM on 01/01/2012
Yes, we need to keep up the dialogue. In the International Year of Biodiversity (2010), various reports identified five main causes for the present mass extinction crisis: habitat fragmentation, pollution, invasive species, overexploitation and climate change. Humans are implicated in all of them. There is no easy fix, though a tax on usage of fossil fuels and precious metals might provide some incentive for using less. We need to think more about how and where we get our food and goods from, how many children to have (hint: fewer), how big to allow our cities to sprawl, how we get around, and how to preserve ecosystems (which we still understand quite poorly). We have work to do...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
07:51 PM on 01/01/2012
There is technology out there to reverse this!

It's called BIO-ROCK. Bio-Rock depends on a supply of electricity to change the equilibrium of the system. Coral is almost all CaCO3. Coral is a sequestering machine. Coral growths of 10cm - 2 inches per year have been reported, in the world of coral growth this is warp speed!

http://news.discovery.com/tech/electricity-coral-reefs-biorock-111226.html

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/bio-rock-shock-treatment-for-coral-reefs.html

Now combine this with off shore wind turbine power we get electricity, marine habitat, CO2 sequestering, & oceanic pH balancing.

Maybe you think this would be applicable to the tropics but check this map out!

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/coldwater-coral-reefs-distribution
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:32 AM on 01/02/2012
A constant electrical supply, connected underwater. What could possibly go wrong.
07:23 PM on 01/02/2012
I saw that item. It is very encouraging. Coupled to a wind-powered or solar generator, the technique could be a big assist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
07:35 PM on 01/01/2012
I'm always a little puzzled by the term "acidification" since the oceans are only getting "less basic".

Here's a good explanation:

http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQacidity.html#AcidicOA

The same site has information about the risks associated with the changing pH of the oceans, and there are additional references at the end of the article.
07:04 PM on 01/01/2012
Here's a must-see TED talk by marine ecologist Jeremy Jackson. From over-fishing to pollution to climate change, he lays out the shocking state of the ocean today. Very lucid talk supported by sobering photos and stats.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
01:47 PM on 01/02/2012
oh thank you for linking to this. i LOVE TED talks!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
05:33 PM on 01/01/2012
The AGW church must be getting desperate, the lies are getting bigger all the time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
07:23 PM on 01/01/2012
Tell us what you think is wrong about the article.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:59 AM on 01/02/2012
Canada Stan believes in religious persecution, don't you know?
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:21 AM on 01/02/2012
Happy new year stan!

Ha ha! LOL! Good one Stan!

Actually, it is the Church of Fossil Fuel Fires that is getting desperate. Don't you remember? The one where bearing false witness against your neighbor is a virtue. The church where self interest trumps all else... Truth,knowledge, beauty, and love are mere inconveniences to the Church of Fossil Fuel Fires. Trample them as yee may, eh? The church where the mocking of science and scientists is a right of passage.

So tell us Stan, is your intelligence quotient closer to the molar hydrogen ion concentration of a high pH aqueous solution, or a low pH one?

Actually, it doesn't matter.

BTW, do you know if today is a propitious day to sacrifice a rooster? In the CFFF that is....

Have a lovely day!
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:34 AM on 01/02/2012
Sacrifice a rooster and it will still run around like an idgit.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:48 PM on 01/02/2012
Ahhhh, a genius!

So genius, tell me how the Kyoto treaty would reduce C02 emissions if it allowed the large polluters like China to get a pass.
Wouldn't more production simply move to the higher emitting factories in China?

The Kyoto treaty has been the holy grail for the greens, but no one can explain how it would accomplish it's stated goal.

You wanna try?
02:25 PM on 01/01/2012
While I agree with the theme of the article, the 30% number for acidification increase may be misleading in that other sources desribe the change as 0.1 or from 8.2 to 8.1.
Certainly, animals and plants that evolved to take advantage of a ph in the range of 8.2 are going to be stressed by acidification changes.
On land, as temperatures change, life is expected to move north and south in response. Similarly, ocean life may move up and down in response to acidification. If some organisms are unable to survive by moving but are necessary to sustain the lives of our species, mankind can look to genetic modification to speed the changes needed in those organisms.
Mankind has required artificial selection to support its population for thousands of yearss. Thank goodness we have some tools to speed the process up. Will we have the courage to do so?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
04:59 PM on 01/01/2012
i think you are making many assumptions perhaps inapplicable to the real world. How can genetic modification sustain the vast networks of coral in the ocean? You put too happy a gloss on complex subjects,
10:47 PM on 01/01/2012
No. I stated a fact that science can modify organisms to improve their survival. GMO agricultural products feed the globe and accomplished this in less then 20 years.
I believe modern luddites put a doomsday scenario to every world problem. But good science seems to find solutions.
GMO can be used to modify wild organisms as it has been used to modify domesticated organisms to feed the world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
12:12 AM on 01/02/2012
The PH scale is logarithmic. A 1000% increase in acidity would only be one point lower on the scale.
07:16 PM on 01/02/2012
I hadn't considered that. So a change from 8.2 to 8.1 would be a change of 100% rather then 30%
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:01 AM on 01/03/2012
The pH wiki

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

Counterintuitive, doesn't a unit difference in pH refer to a factor of ten acidity?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
01:06 PM on 01/01/2012
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,
We borrow it from our Children.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:54 PM on 12/31/2011
Great Article.... unfortunately 99% of the people in power to change this kind of devastation believe an invisible being in the clouds gave this planet to them and will save them from any catastrophe unless it is his will not to. So I am betting that as a species, humanity is S.O.L if these findings are accurate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:59 AM on 01/01/2012
The majority of humans have no incentive for change. Comfort breeds content. Discomfort breeds discontent. In order to change we need to make it uncomfortable for the masses to evoke changes in behaviour. Carbon taxes have to be the answer. Discomfort in the wallet will force behavioural change. I can see this as being the only way.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:23 PM on 01/01/2012
I favor junking taxes on profits in favor of taxes on pollution, including CO2, methane, etc. Every company that mines or manufactures creates waste. The more waste and the more toxic the waste the more they should pay. Imagine how much BP would have to pay if it was forced to pay a pollution tax on all the oil it spills and it's even more toxic dispersants, instead of getting a tax break on "loss of equipment" and the cost of the cleanup.