Global warming could reduce marine life rapidly and massively.
Roger Coppock
Contact: Michael Behrenfeld
behr...@science.oregonstate.edu
541-737-5289
Oregon State University
Global warming will reduce ocean productivity, marine life
CORVALLIS, Ore. -- A 10-year, satellite-based analysis has shown for
the first time that primary biological productivity in the oceans - the
growth of phytoplankton that forms the basis for the rest of the marine
food chain - is tightly linked to climate change, and would be reduced
by global warming.
The study, published this week in the journal Nature by researchers
from Oregon State University and five other institutions, found that on
a global scale, a warmer climate could cause a rapid, overall reduction
in marine life.
"This clearly showed that overall ocean productivity decreases when
the climate warms," said lead author Michael Behrenfeld, an OSU
professor of botany and expert on remote sensing of marine biology.
"There is significant regional variability, with some areas showing
enhanced production and some area losses," Behrenfeld said. "But on
a global basis there is an inverse relationship - increased
temperatures cause decreased marine phytoplankton production."
This climate response can be traced to increased stratification in the
oceans, the study showed. When the ocean surface warms, it essentially
becomes "lighter" than the cold, dense water below, which is loaded
with nutrients. This process effectively separates phytoplankton in the
surface layer - which need light for photosynthesis - from the
nutrients below them, which they also need for growth.
The satellite data used in the study were from NASA's SeaWiFS
satellite, or Sea-viewing Wide-Field-of-view Sensor. Since its launch
in 1997, SeaWiFS has measured changes in the color of the ocean - as
more and more phytoplankton are added, the color shifts from blue
toward green. By studying these color changes from space, scientists
can calculate how much phytoplankton pigment is in the water, relate
this to photosynthetic rate, and correlate these changes to
simultaneous changes in climate.
The first climate-driven change in ocean production measured in this
study occurred between 1997 and 1999, when the oceans were recovering
from one of the strongest El Nino events on record. With the end of the
El Nino, global climate began to cool and there was a surge in ocean
phytoplankton productivity that peaked in late 1999.
The second climate event was a long-term warming trend that started in
2000 and continues today. Over this period, the ocean sea surface
became overall warmer and more stratified, and phytoplankton
productivity went down almost in lockstep at a rate of about 190
million tons of carbon a year. On a regional scale, the decreases in
production often exceeded 30 percent.
Despite their microscopic size, ocean phytoplankton are responsible for
about half of the photosynthesis on Earth, a process that removes
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts it into organic carbon
to fuel nearly every ocean ecosystem.
Compared to terrestrial land plants, however, phytoplankton use a very
small amount of biomass to convert large amounts of carbon, because
they are eaten by predators about as quickly as they grow. The entire
global phytoplankton biomass is consumed every two to six days, in
contrast to land plants that might have turnover rates of a year to
hundreds of years.
[ . . . ]
Climate not only influences ocean biology, but ocean biology influences
climate.
"Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a key part of
global warming," Behrenfeld said. "This study shows that as the
climate warms, phytoplankton production goes down, but this also means
that carbon dioxide uptake by ocean plants will decrease. That would
allow carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere,
making the problem worse."
Better understanding this "feedback mechanism" which compounds
global warming is a top priority for study, the researchers say.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/osu-gww120506.php
aloha.kakuikanu
<Yet another fabricated climate scare story snipped>
A 10-year, x-ray brain scan based analysis has shown for
the first time that primary mental activity in the CO2-phobic indivials
- the
growth of brain cells that forms the basis for the rest of the brain
activity
- is tightly linked to climate change paranoia, and would be reduced
by global warming scares.
The study, published this week in the journal Nature by researchers
from Octagon State University and seven other institutions, found that
on
a global scale, a CO2-phobic cells could cause a rapid, overall
reduction
in intellectual capacity.
"This clearly showed that overall brain productivity decreases when
the bain is warring," said lead author Bob Lablow, an OSU
professor of physiology and expert on remote sensing of brain zoology.
"There is significant regional variability, with some areas showing
enhanced production and some area losses," Lablow said. "But on
a global basis there is an inverse relationship - increased
scares cause decreased analytic abilities."
Bork
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> <Yet another fabricated climate scare story snipped>
>
Rush Limbaugh says that climate change is just more lefty junk science; like
their Godless evolution theory. He's the smartest man in America and would
never lie. Bush agrees.
aloha.kakuikanu
Look, I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is. Nor that I care if Bush agrees
or not. It is GW "theory" and its invariably gloomy predictions that
fails to impress. It appears that anti CO2 fanatics removed any
mentioning of GW Controversy from wikipedia GW page. Sure, the science
of GW has been firmly established!
Christopher P. Winter
wrote:
It is true that Wikipedia's article on Global Warming makes no mention of
the controversy over the subject. (I just checked.)
What you got wrong is the allegation that this was arranged (by "anti CO2
fanatics" or anyone else) in order to make it appear there is no controversy.
Proving this is as simple as posting a link:
aloha.kakuikanu
Christopher P. Winter wrote:
> It is true that Wikipedia's article on Global Warming makes no mention of
> the controversy over the subject. (I just checked.)
>
> What you got wrong is the allegation that this was arranged (by "anti CO2
> fanatics" or anyone else) in order to make it appear there is no controversy.
>
> Proving this is as simple as posting a link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
The link to the controversy page was always there on the main page.
Somebody deleted it.
Let's also mention that numberwatch list
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm was never allowed in the
references list. Sure it's "Neutral Point of View".