• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

John_Brandt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
uri_text_box.gif



Bush Administration plan to reduce global warming could devastate sea life


University of Rhode Island (URI) marine biologist says CO2 injection in deep sea would alter ocean chemistry, affect numerous creatures


KINGSTON, R.I. -- November 17, 2003 -- A Bush Administration proposal to mitigate the effects of global warming by capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and injecting it into the deep sea could have disastrous effects on sea life, according to a University of Rhode Island researcher.

Brad Seibel, assistant professor of marine biology at URI, said that while the Administration’s plan is still in the experimental stage, enough is already known about the biology of marine organisms to say with certainty that the plan will harm the marine environment in significant ways.

Increased CO2 in the oceans would result in decreases in the pH levels (the measure of acidity) of seawater, resulting in dramatic physiological effects on many species, Seibel said. Shallow-living organisms like shelled mollusks and corals are already being affected by the growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric CO2 diffuses into the upper layers of the water, it inhibits the ability of shellfish to form shells and causes coral reefs to dissolve.

Deep-sea creatures are even more sensitive to environmental changes, he said. In some species, their metabolism would become suppressed and lead to retarded growth and reproduction, while others would be unable to transport oxygen in their blood.


deepseaGonatus365.jpg



"CO2 injection would be detrimental to a great many organisms," said the URI biologist. "It would kill everything that can’t swim fast enough to get out of the way, because in concentrated form it’s highly toxic, even to humans. But the Department of Energy seems willing to sacrifice the animals of the deep sea if it will stop global warming. That’s not entirely unreasonable considering that if we keep stalling on taking serious measures to reduce global warming, we won’t be able to do anything about it. But I’d still like to see that we’re doing everything else possible to reduce emissions before we begin polluting the deep-sea."

The government’s "carbon sequestration" plan is designed to collect carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and store them in underground geologic formations or deep in the ocean. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in September the creation of seven regional partnerships to establish the framework needed to develop the necessary technologies and put them into action. In addition, the Bush Administration convened a Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum last June where energy ministers from 13 countries discussed the potential for CO2 injections around the globe.

In the new book Climate Change and Biodiversity*, published in August, Seibel and co-author Victoria Fabry wrote: "From the perspective of marine organisms, deep-ocean sequestration means concentrating an otherwise dilute toxin to well above lethal levels, and placing it in an environment where the organisms are less tolerant of environmental fluctuation in general and CO2 in particular…Localized devastation of biological communities at the injection sites is certain."

As seawater becomes acidified, growth rates of calcareous phytoplankton (those with calcium carbonate shells) will be reduced as a result of the effects of CO2 on the process of calcification. Metabolism in some animal species may also be depressed by increased acidity. Furthermore, some fish, squids, and shrimps will have a diminished capacity for oxygen uptake at the gill and transportation through their bloodstream, leading to asphyxiation.

Seibel said that there is typically a natural exchange of CO2 between the sea and the atmosphere, but increases of atmospheric CO2 are already affecting the equilibrium. Intentional injections of CO2 will further disrupt the ecosystem.

"The carbon dioxide-carbonate system is arguably the most important chemical equilibria in the ocean," Seibel and Fabry wrote. "It influences nearly every aspect of marine science, including ecology and, ultimately, the biodiversity of the oceans."

Brad Seibel, assistant professor of marine biology in the University’s Department of Biological Sciences, joined the URI faculty in the summer of 2003 after having worked as a marine ecologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Monterey, Calif. for several years. He received undergraduate and doctorate degrees from the University of California, Santa Barbara. In addition to studying the impact of CO2 on deep-sea creatures, his research focuses on the physiology and adaptations of marine organisms, especially squid, living in extreme environments like the waters around Antarctica.

* Seibel, B. A. and V. J. Fabry. 2003. Marine Biotic Response to Elevated Carbon Dioxide In: Climate Change and Biodiversity: Synergistic Impacts, L. Hannah and T. Lovejoy, eds. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science 4. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International: Washington, DC.

http://www.news.uri.edu/releases/html/03-1117-01.html
 

liquid

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Bush wants to do some goofy things lately. :? Hopefully this 'idea' just dies. Honestly I don't know how they'd even collect the CO2 emissions to begin with...

Shane
 

Jolieve

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well the forest thinning idea wouldn't be a bad plan, if it were done correctly. But this... this just... *shakes her head* I feel compelled to write a letter to my senators... both of whom will vote against this idea anyway because both are Democrats. *chuckle*
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I remember hearing about an idea to spread iron over the surface of the ocean, causing phytoplankton to bloom, causing CO2 to be absorbed, with (theoretically) the same benefits. This idea was presented in a university text!

I just kind of shook my head when hearing about it....let's try to fix the things we're screwing up, rather than invent idiotic ideas to try and screw things up more.
 

Ben1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What Bush needs to do is make a plan that pays me to go scuba diving all over the world. Then Ill let him know his C02 idea wont works. I could probably convince him..................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Howabout an underground insulated vault for storing dry ice? cubic mile for cubic mile that will store a lot more CO2 than that injection plan.

To make the dry ice, the raw materials are coal or petro., or natural gas. ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I have no idea if this plan has merit or not, but if global warming is to be mankinds undoing, then we best put SOME plan in place to correct the situation, if possible :roll:

Louey
 

liquid

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You may want to read this: http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf The original document that started the whole Kyoto agreement has been called into question due to fudged data.

I'm not saying that global warming is or is not happening but when the founding paper that brought this possibility to light is essentially debunked, it does say something.

Shane
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I have read that the last 100,000 years has been the most temperature stable period in the earth's history and that a warming trend was in the makes hundreds of years ago. Also that a warming of 2 or 3 degrees agerage temp across the globe, the same figure that the greenies scream will kill us all, is nothing compared to warming and cooling cycles of the past. Warming and cooling is a natural cycle of the earth and animals that can't cope with the heat, die. And animals that can't cope with the cold die.

But lets assume for one second that global warming can kill us all, melt the ice caps, and send the earth (which has been here for 4 billion years) into a downward spiral that will destroy it by 2080. Let's also assume that we are the only cause of this warming and that if we don't do something, it will kill us all.

If the above were true, then go with the plan. Who cares about squid and reefs? As long as my summers are mild, I'm happy. :D It's like these marine bio nerds care more about some crab that lives in a deep sea heat vent then they do about the rainforrest, which can provide us with so much. I say take the lesser of two evils and screw up the ocean to save OUR part of the world...the air breathing important part.

Still, the plan is flawed because in a few hundred years that CO2 will just deffuse out of the water when it makes its rounds and wells up to the surface in the indian ocean and the northern waters. But then again...I won't be alive then, so inject away! :twisted:
 

Quigonsean

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Global Warming is a FARCE, just another bullshicontroll mechanism of the Gov and UN. Look at the real figures of temp over the last 5000 years we are in the coolest time the earth has ever had excepting the Ice Age.

Sean
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"It's like these marine bio nerds care more about some crab that lives in a deep sea heat vent then they do about the rainforrest, which can provide us with so much. I say take the lesser of two evils and screw up the ocean to save OUR part of the world...the air breathing important part."

I really hope you're being sarcastic here. You do realize that the "air breathing part" is intimately connected with the "water breathing part", right?
 

shr00m

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
while it seems global warming may well be blown up bigger than it is. no matter how you look at it, pumping tons of CO2 under the ocean doesnt seem like a viable long term solution to me. nor should it to anyone with anything past a 3rd grade education.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It's like these marine bio nerds care more about some crab that lives in a deep sea heat vent then they do about the rainforrest, which can provide us with so much. I say take the lesser of two evils and screw up the ocean to save OUR part of the world...the air breathing important part.

Hmm, too bad that ocean productivity is what supplies most of our oxygen, eh?

Global Warming is a FARCE, just another bullshicontroll mechanism of the Gov and UN. Look at the real figures of temp over the last 5000 years we are in the coolest time the earth has ever had excepting the Ice Age.

I have looked at them. From several locations, and almost every day. They are a crucial part of the work I am involved with. Global Warming is not a farce. Our level of impact is unknown.

Also that a warming of 2 or 3 degrees agerage temp across the globe, the same figure that the greenies scream will kill us all, is nothing compared to warming and cooling cycles of the past.

Its these two or three degrees that trigger the warming and cooling seesawing on a multi-thousand year time scale.

Ever heard of thermohaline circulation?

18,000 years ago, the southern hemisphere came into a position to be warmed by the sun (switching of orbital parameters, I can go into more detail if you wish). This warming speeds up and reduces the salinity of the Antarctic circumpolar current, increasing relatively fresh water inputs into the southern ocean. This northward motion of water brings warm, salty water up from the tropical regions to the poles, where mainly pure water freezes and denser water sinks, transporting heat and commencing thermohaline circulation. This process acts as a heat engine for the entire Earth.

This is what commenced deglaciation. However, from then until now, several events, known as the "bipolar seesaw" occured; periods of rapid climactic switching taking place (ie, the heat engine melts enough water to shut down thermohaline circulation and turning off the heat engine).

Several research efforts are now devoted to determining how much meltwater it will take to turn off the thermohaline circulation again. So far it looks like it is a lot less than one would think, in other words, those 2 or 3 degrees may be well over enough. Think of it as a pen on its end. The slightest bump, even a breath, will knock it over violently.

I have read that the last 100,000 years has been the most temperature stable period in the earth's history

You have read wrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
liquid":21fse8g8 said:
Bush wants to do some goofy things lately. :? Hopefully this 'idea' just dies.

We can hope, but I'm not sure that will happen. The idea of fertilizing the oceans and allowing phytoplankton to proliferate as CO2 sinks has been around for some time now, and seems teeter at the edge of serious consideration for substantial periods of time. This idea is likely to follow the same course.
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
galleon":1i6ug15y said:
It's like these marine bio nerds care more about some crab that lives in a deep sea heat vent then they do about the rainforrest, which can provide us with so much. I say take the lesser of two evils and screw up the ocean to save OUR part of the world...the air breathing important part.

Hmm, too bad that ocean productivity is what supplies most of our oxygen, eh?

Global Warming is a FARCE, just another bullshicontroll mechanism of the Gov and UN. Look at the real figures of temp over the last 5000 years we are in the coolest time the earth has ever had excepting the Ice Age.

I have looked at them. From several locations, and almost every day. They are a crucial part of the work I am involved with. Global Warming is not a farce. Our level of impact is unknown.

Also that a warming of 2 or 3 degrees agerage temp across the globe, the same figure that the greenies scream will kill us all, is nothing compared to warming and cooling cycles of the past.

Its these two or three degrees that trigger the warming and cooling seesawing on a multi-thousand year time scale.

Ever heard of thermohaline circulation?

18,000 years ago, the southern hemisphere came into a position to be warmed by the sun (switching of orbital parameters, I can go into more detail if you wish). This warming speeds up and reduces the salinity of the Antarctic circumpolar current, increasing relatively fresh water inputs into the southern ocean. This northward motion of water brings warm, salty water up from the tropical regions to the poles, where mainly pure water freezes and denser water sinks, transporting heat and commencing thermohaline circulation. This process acts as a heat engine for the entire Earth.

This is what commenced deglaciation. However, from then until now, several events, known as the "bipolar seesaw" occured; periods of rapid climactic switching taking place (ie, the heat engine melts enough water to shut down thermohaline circulation and turning off the heat engine).

Several research efforts are now devoted to determining how much meltwater it will take to turn off the thermohaline circulation again. So far it looks like it is a lot less than one would think, in other words, those 2 or 3 degrees may be well over enough. Think of it as a pen on its end. The slightest bump, even a breath, will knock it over violently.

I have read that the last 100,000 years has been the most temperature stable period in the earth's history

You have read wrong.
So, does that mean you think mankind was responsible for "Snow Ball Earth " the last time it happened? :wink:
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top