You knew that there was a recent report on the state of climate change by a team of 100s of scientists from all over the world. You knew that they agreed that climate change is real, happening faster than previously thought, and was probably promoted by mankind's various activities. You knew that. And you've probably filed that one away somewhere in your "oh-well-it's-not-the-day-after-tomorrow" file drawer. OK. Your drawers about to get a little more crowded. Here's a new report on the state of the oceans. It's not good.
Basically, The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) has released this report that suggests that the ocean's role as earth's buffer is being seriously compromised. Buffer....where have we heard that term recently...oh yea - last week, about Wetlands acting as a buffer against storms, floods, excess water etc. Oceans act as the planet's buffer by absorbing other potential shocks, such as pollutants, oxygen loss to ensure homeostasis on a planetary basis. So if ocean's abilities to act as a buffer are being compromised - well, that...can't...be....too...good, uh, I guess. No, it's not.
Here's the $64,000 quote from the report:
"A “deadly trio” of warming, deoxygenation and increased acidification combined, the report found, are posing an even greater threat to the oceans than they would alone. While the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere promotes increased warming and acidification, pollution from sewage and fertilizer is creating algae blooms that decrease the oceans’ levels of oxygen. The report found that overfishing, too, threatens marine life.
The acidification, specifically, is “unprecedented in the Earth’s known history,” says the report, which found that the oceans are more acidic now than they’ve been for the past 300 million years. And carbon is being released into the ocean at a rate 10 times more quickly than the last time there was a major collapse of ocean species, 55 million years ago. As a result, the authors write, they have reason to believe that “the next mass extinction may have already begun.”
The next "mass extinction"? <gulp>. Didn't the LAST one wipe EVERYTHING off the face of the earth? (yup) Doesn't that mean that next time....we're included? (yup)
The report's conclusions, that there are accelerating areas of acidification (lower pH), eutrophic/anoxic areas (dead zones - you know why) and rising temperatures (and a single degree makes a large difference) all seem vaguely familiar - as if the same themes were present in last week's climate change report. Oh - they were.
Take a look at the summary of the report here: Summary Report on the State Of The Oceans. I don't expect you to read through the entire 11 or so pages, but skim the first few to get a sense of what it's about, and then I'd like you to read some of the five (5) summaries that begin on page 3. Find a topic of interest; one that you feel something about and write your response in the following format:
- What interested you about this topic
- What you found most provocative, upsetting, concerning or frightening about this topic
- What you would like to see the world do about this topic. (Really.)
Life came from the oceans. Will it end there as well? It's almost too much to process.
I found the second summary, the debate about the coral reefs to be extremely intriguing. I think it is very interesting because I used to have a dead set goal to be a marine biologist. That dream has since changed but that is besides the point. The whole world population especially in non coastal areas take the ocean for granted. To many of us it is just a large body of undiscovered water. Obviously the many oil and fuel manufacturing companies take it for granted as well, since they have so frequently in the past treated the ocean as a ground for waste disposal.
ReplyDeleteI think the most upsetting thing about this topic is that we are likely to hit rock bottom in under one hundred years. The decline of the world's health is happening right now, and faster than the human population can fathom or react to. The rising of the CO2 levels are something that very few people understand, or even know how to reduce. Not only the coral environments, but the ocean environment in general is 75 percent of the world's surface. Just because the oceans are not drinkable does not mean that they are negligible. The oceans provide crucial environments for thousands of species on land and underwater. This is something that cannot be understood and addressed in the time that is allotted. It only takes 2 more degrees for the coral reefs to literally start dissolving. That's terrifying.
Honestly I don't think that the world can do anything at this point. I've watched so many documentaries and news casts that depict hope...but nothing is going to get the public motivated enough. Sure it only takes a small group of committed citizens to make a change...but that is not enough when it comes to the fate of the world. Even the coral reef recovery projects could be slowed down, and even reversed with the rising levels of CO2. I think the human population in the past has had many chances to stop our destructive behavior. We have the polluted the oceans, and the Earth...past recovery.
In the article about climate change’s negative affects on coral reefs there were a couple of points that stood out to me. Most people when they think of coral reefs only consider their beauty and their ability to provide sanctions for a variety of fish populations. However, this article points out how millions of humans depend on coral reefs for survival because it supplies them with food and a profit from tourism. I conducted additional research and discovered that coral reefs supply millions of people with an estimated 375 billion dollars through goods, and a variety of other economic services. It was also shocking to learn that coral reefs are experiencing decadal rates of climate change compared to what is usually millennial rates of climate change. These rapid changes give coral reefs the inability to adapt to the fast paced environmental changes.
ReplyDeleteIt was disturbing to learn that coral reefs with no longer be healthy ecosystems that can support a variety of life within the next twenty to thirty years. Coral reefs provide a home for nearly one fourth of the entire marine species and without a home these animals will likely die and eventually become extinct, unless they can quickly adapt and find somewhere else to live. I was also amazed that policy makers do not understand the severity of this situation and believe that limiting the ocean from rising two degrees celsius or staying below 450 CO2e will be enough for coral reef survival. This is not true. The human race is naive in believing that these goals are enough to keep the coral reefs alive. If the problem at hand does not negatively affect people tomorrow, then they are simply not concerned with making a change.
For thoses who understand the importance of the depletion of coral reefs and want to make difference there are options. I think one of the most realistic things people can do to help is to educate oneself on the severity of the situation and learn how you can take even small actions to help aid coral reefs. One way would be to support reef-friendly businesses like fish, boating, or snorkeling operators that are interested in preserving these beautiful natural structures. Or if one lives near the ocean, becoming involved in coral reef clean up organizations are a helpful way to try and preserve these rare structures so other generations can enjoy their beauty and fish populations can continue to thrive in their environment.
I was interested in the state of the oceans fisheries (the third report) because of the possible implications that it could have and to see if what I had heard about overfishing was true. I have never personally been very into fishing but my dad grew up in New York City and went fishing quite frequently as a child. From stories he told me it seemed as though fisheries (at least in New York City) had been on the decline for a while but it was interesting to see if that was true of the world’s fisheries. Furthermore, I had heard of horrific levels of overfishing in recent years but it is interesting to see what the effect, on a global level, that pattern of overfishing has had. It seems to me as though out of all the functions that the ocean serves perhaps acting as a source of food is the most vital so my interest in this topic was further driven by what the state of the world’s fisheries might mean in a world with an ever increasing population.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, I found this topic to be rather disturbing and frightening. The source of this disturbance can basically be separated into three sections: The extent of overfishing, the inaction of those charged with managing fisheries, and the ramifications that overfishing could have on global food sources in the future. According to the report, “...in 2012 FAO determined that 70% of the world fish populations are overexploited of which 30% have biomass collapsed to less than 10% of unfished levels.” I found these figures, and the damage to the world’s fish populations that they represent, rather alarming. But perhaps more alarming is the blatant inaction (or perhaps ineffectiveness) of those charged with protecting and managing fisheries. The report stated that a recent global study of fishery management gave “...60% of countries a ‘fail’” The article would later say that action to stop the many ailments of fisheries would have to be “urgent, focused, innovative, and global.” But with 60% of countries receiving a failing grade in fishery management I do not see that type of action being taken. What worries me is what effect this inaction will have on fisheries over a long period of time. Could there be a future without fish? It is this question that I find most frightening.
While I do think that the articles idea of smaller, community and ecosystem based fishery management seems promising, I think that it is very clear that some broad, sweeping changes must also be made. One of these changes is in the area of IUU (illegal, unregulated, and unreported) fishing. The report estimated that IUU fishing makes up 35% of the world’s yearly catch although the extent of IUU fishing is not completely known. It seems to me that this should be one of the easier things to control. If countries devoted more resources (like money, manpower, and technology) to stopping IUU fishing perhaps it could be reduced and some of the stress on fish populations might be relieved. The other broad change I would suggest is to hold countries accountable for the way in which they manage their fisheries. The statistic that 60% of countries received a failing grade in 2012 for their fishery management suggests that many countries simply do not care enough about the health of their fish populations. If we, on a global level, came together and agreed on some targets for our fishery management perhaps some progress might be made.
-Ian Mundy
This topic of fishing is very interesting to me. Two summers ago I went on a longer camping trip with the AMC. We did this exercise one night around the campfire where the instructors put a large pile of M&M’s if the middle of the circle of campers. We were told that we could take either 0,1, or 2. Each M&M represented a fish to feed ourselves for the day. If we took 0 fish one turn then the next we had to take at least 1. After going around the first couple of turn, everyone of course took 2 treats, the pile was almost empty. We talked about it and decided that everyone should cut down and only take 0 or 1. After a couple of turns we could see that this method meant everyone got a little less fish over a much longer period of time. We discussed this small exercise in the much larger picture of the ocean. We talked about over fishing and how, without changing human habits, the oceans would be over fished very quickly. This exercise reminds me of this article and how it interests me.
ReplyDeleteI found it very surprising how no country was found to even be good in the way of ocean quality and all that stuff. I would think that there is one country that would at least get a passing grade. It is so surprising how much the oceans are deteriorating. It is so surprising that this huge buffer zone is changing to quickly.
It seems that people would have to make drastic changes to their lives in order to slow or stop this process. It seems like a very up hill battle though. It would be nice to ask people to stop eating fish and for there to be no commercial fishing in any way but realistically that will not happen suddenly. I think that if people cut down on their consumption to at least give these fish a fighting chance at keeping their numbers up. I would say that to slow this process that everyday people should just cut down on the amount of seafood they eat.
What I find fasinating about this topic is that the fishing regulations are not enforced. Without regulation, the fish population will drop considerably in the near future. As the population of the Earth increases, the demand for seafood increases. Eventually, the demand will overcome the supply and the oceans may become "empty".
ReplyDeleteNot only are the oceans overfished, but the oceans are slowly being polluted by industries. If the level of pollution continues to rise, the oceans may become uninhabitable to many forms of life, and we may lose a major source of food. Without this source of food, many people will starve, which would not be good.
What I find truly frightening is how far we have already come in polluting the oceans. The oceans have been victims to the wrath of the industrial age for over one hundred years, and there appears to have no end in sight. As China, Japan, and many other low-regulation countries build more and more factories, the level of pollution will only increase at an exponential rate.
What should the world do about this? Well… Population control would be one thing. The more people there are on this planet, the more pollution will be introduced into the environment. Perhaps a economy-based approach: If you do not have a child, you will get a lovely sum of money from the government, or perhaps from a private organization with more spending money than the US Government that "cares" about the environment and is named after a popular fruit. Because, honestly, what would you rather have? 10,000 extra dollars, or a child that eats, screams, cries, poops, gets bad grades and resents you?
If we do not do something soon, we may have to go all "WALL-E" and launch ourselves into space and live in motorized chairs, drink our pizza through a straw, and never have to walk anywhere…. Actually, that sounds pretty sweet. --Nic
I find it very interesting that the changes in the ocean are in fact changing at a faster and more alarming rate than we had previously thought. Is it actually moving faster than we once thought or are the changes just picking up in speed? It is also interesting that governments all over the world are doing nothing to slow the increasing changes we are seeing. Even world powers, like ourselves, are doing the bare minimum. All of the government environmental organizations are all influenced by large companies and corporations like oil companies owned by people high in the government. Fish in our oceans are disappearing and the giant fish of the seas are also less prominent than they were about 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteIt really does frighten me that governments are not trying to do more to slow global weirding. They are leaving the planet to their children in a worse state then when they inherited it. We are the next generation and WE have to try and fix the mess that the past generation has left us. The oceans are our source of life and if we don’t take care of them we will be severely affected. We are overfishing the oceans of the fish that we see as food staples. We need to find a better source of food. Fish populations like sword fish and tuna are becoming threatened and we still fish them out of the seas. Tuna are as endangered as rhinos and are still being fished. Huge tuna are no longer seen regularly when they were once the norm. We are fishing them out of the sea so fast and at such a quantity that they are unable to mature to their full size and reproduce before they are caught. There are other species of fish that are cheaper, grow faster, and sustainable to raise. Fish like stripped mullet and tilapia are good fish choices because they are sustainable food sources and are environmentally friendly. We need to find and use more sustainable ways to use our oceans.
I would like to see the stop of unsustainable fishing and farming. Also there are perfectly good fish in the ocean that are sustainable species and are better for the planet and are cheaper. There are so many ways to slow down the disappearance of the fish. By not eating or buying certain species of fish is one good way of showing the peoples displeasure of the overfishing of the oceans. Fish like sword fish and tuna are only scooped from the oceans because everyday people buy it. If we as a people of the world boycott the certain fish species than we will surely see a difference. This needs to happen if we are to save our oceans.
I found the piece on the coral reefs interesting. I personally am fascinated about the species diversity in the coral reefs. It is such a unique ecosystem, despite its fragile homeostasis. It is really a treasure to be able to have access, even just through pictures. The coral reef is so special, it has such gorgeous look. It is so different from other ecosystems that are on land. Unfortunately the fact that it is in the water seems to make it more susceptible to change. The way it has undergone disaster as recently as 1998 makes me wonder why it is not more protected. It seems clear to me that it was at risk before now. I am interested in the methods that are to be used to save the coral reefs.
ReplyDeleteThe most upsetting part about this piece of the report was the evaluation of ongoing attempts to save them. The write-up says that the inland people have been trying to limit the pollution into the reefs because it is causing bleaching and other issues. Unfortunately, these attempts will be futile in but a few decades if they are not heightened. The authors believe that just the movements by the inland people is not enough. Also, the common theory that the ecosystem will adapt to new surroundings has been challenged. It was said that if the water temperature rose two more degrees, the reefs would disappear. If the change was happening over millennia, instead of a couple decades the reefs would probably adapt, as animals do to climate change over time. But the rising threat of temperature change has been deemed as a critical danger to the preservation of the coral reefs.
I would hope that the world would re-evalute some of their choices, especially right near the reefs, but also away from it. For the people nearer to the reefs, they can make an immediate change, by changing where the waste water of their industry goes. They can also raise more awareness where they live. Part of the rest of the world’s job is to educate the public about the problem also. They should also stand by the attempts to lower carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Over time, those emissions will also affect the temperature. Also people who do not live near the reefs should open their eyes and see what other ecosystems there are around them. Are they fragile? Are they in danger? If so, how can they change their lifestyles and others to protect it from further damage? These are the questions I would hope all humans would ask themselves as they learn about the demise of the reefs.
Last February my mum and I took a trip to Belize, mainly to see Mayan ruins yes, but we also spent some time on the islands and by the Caribbean coral reefs. I have to admit, those reefs are some of the most unforgettable things I have ever seen, not only because I’ve never seen anything like them before anywhere, but also the sheer diversity and beauty they hold is astounding. Experiencing the coral reefs just once makes it almost unbearable to know what’s happening and what will happen to them and the life they support.
ReplyDeleteThe most upsetting thing about the rate of deterioration in the oceans is how fast the rate is decreasing. In only a few short years, this world will be a completely different place, and I’m not sure I want to be around to experience it. It’s so easy to forget what’s going on in the world most of the time, but I know it won’t be like that forever. At some point the balance will completely shift, homeostasis will be thrown off, and suddenly everything will revolve around the fact that Earth may be slowly dying. I think if you pointed that fact out to anyone, they would be pretty terrified because without Earth, there is no possibility for life. It’s a depressing thought I know, but in my mind, it’s a very possible reality, and Earth is now just starting to show the first signs with the trouble in the oceans.
For me, I think it would at least make me feel better about being human if the whole world at least recognized there is a problem in the oceans and elsewhere, and tried to make an effort to care. I don’t understand how people can just ignore the problems we’re facing because what we’re doing to the planet it like setting your own beloved house on fire for no reason, intentionally. Maybe the mass chaos we’re created was not originally intentional, but it seems clear to me now there is a problem and we are that problem, yet there are people out there who don’t care at all. And I think that’s the saddest thing in the entire world.
The topic I chose was coral reefs. I chose this topic because it has always interested me. When I was smaller, teachers would say that the coral reef was actually a giant living organism. Oddly enough I believed them. But, in a sense it is one big giant organism in that all things live off one another, and if one thing dies, the rest of it dies. It’s an ecosystem. Also teachers would always say that the first to go is the reefs. An interesting event put forth in this section of the article that interested me was coral bleaching. I don’t really know what this is, but later in the article it says that ocean acidification can slow down the post-bleaching recovery leads me to consider that this bleaching business is detrimental to coral reefs. It is also interesting how the article mentions that the author of the paper believes it unlikely that the coral reefs can acclimate to the ever changing living environments fast enough, and will therefore be gone in only a few decades should we refuse to take initiative and stop this process of degradation.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely the most concerning thing in this article about the coral reefs is that if we don’t take action immediately the coral reefs will be gone because they cannot adapt quickly enough to tolerate the rising CO2 levels and rising temperature levels (which go hand in hand). The article mentions that these drastic changes are happening in mere decades, while the coral reefs are projected to only be able to adapt quick enough if these drastic changes were considerably slower, intensifying over centuries instead. It’s extremely difficult for myself to comprehend that these issues are now, not later in the future. I know that a lot of what these scientists are suggesting is speculative and they can only go on the information that they have gathered, having never analyzed something of this magnitude before. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that not doing anything is a poorer choice than attempting something.
At this point, the world should raise complete awareness about accelerated coral reef degradation. Or, on a larger scale, raise awareness about the “triumvirate” of acidification, temperature warming and deoxygenation of the ocean. Perhaps these coral reefs could serve as everchanging examples of this trio. In the article, it said that these events alone are bad, yet when combined all situations are worsened. I propose that the world seek out a way to deal with temperature warming. Going about this would entail significantly the agricultural industry, since nitrogen runoffs play such a huge roll in this global crisis. By doing so, we could decrease a large portion of greenhouses gasses that get stuck in our atmosphere, causing the earth to increase in temperature. If we could do this, then the temperature could perhaps decrease, and by doing so would increase oxygenation of the water, since colder water can hold more oxygen than warmer water. This solution could possibly take care of two of three issues, which is certainly a start. It’s important to realize it is nearly impossible to fix this whole issue completely, but if the world can start to take little steps in the right direction, the end result would be much better than if we continue on the path we are on.
One of the most interesting things about this article on the state of
ReplyDeletethe oceans is that there is a time lag of several decades between the
CO2 in our atmosphere and the CO2 dissolved in water. It surprises me
that this would be the case considering; humans constantly pollute the
air with carbon emissions. I have always thought the air has been more
polluted than our oceans, however after reading this I understand the
huge impact global CO2 emissions have caused. Also predictions for
ocean oxygen content show a significant decline of 1 percent to 7
percent by 2100, this is extremely dangerous. Decreasing oxygen levels
in our oceans will only continue if we do not pay close attention to
what the International Program on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is
explaining and act upon it.
According to recent literature, most, if not all, of the planets past
five mass extinctions have been affected by at least one of the three
symptoms of global carbon perturbations. Not to mention all of which
are still continuing to affect the ocean today. Climate change “deadly
trio”, our overexploitation of marine recourses (fishing), and
continued pollution and contamination of the ocean have created
extremely terrifying consequences for us to face in the future. I am
very concerned for our children and their children’s lives. It is
unfair and unfortunate that they will have to be living and dealing
with our parents and our destruction and pollution of the ocean and
access heat from the atmosphere.
Due to human abuse and neglect to our ocean over the last couple of
centuries, evidence has shown that marine ecosystems have been highly
degraded in the most alarming ways. As this article states, we have
been taking the ocean for granted. We have not really understood that
the ocean has been absorbing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere by
blocking us from the worst effects of continuous climate change. This
process has created a “deadly trio”, acidification, warming and
deoxygenation. This “deadly trio” is combining and expanding
continuously creating an extreme effect on our ocean that will
eventually lead to another mass extinction of marine life. Who knows
what will happen after that. We must express awareness and follow
through with what the IPSO is encouraging to help sustain the marine
ecosystems.