As I look out on Kachemak Bay, I know that the waters of the Bay, Cook Inlet, and the Gulf of Alaska are teeming with organisms that nourish the fish that I depend on to make a living and to fill my freezer. Some days, the water is too rough to go fishing, but still, I know the fish are there waiting for when I can go. For more than 30 years, my family and I have enjoyed some of the most sought-after and prized foods in the world, harvested right at our doorsteps. It is only in the last five years that I have learned that the very food web that supports this luxury and sustenance is under attack from a silent killer.
Ocean acidification is the result of the ocean absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As the world population has increased, so has the use and demand of energy that is produced by many different methods and fuels. Most of these methods result in the emission of carbon in the atmosphere. As the ocean absorbs this carbon dioxide, the acidity in seawater is increased and this reduces the availability of calcium carbonate minerals, which are the building blocks of shells and skeletons for many marine organisms.
As I drove off the Homer Spit the other day, I decided to stop by the oyster co-op store and purchase a few oysters for dinner. The array of shellfish there is impressive and the availability of fresh oysters is one of the huge benefits that add to our quality of life. Although the supply of these gems is consistent and normally abundant, there have been incidents of seed shortages and scientists in Puget Sound have found that as the pH of seawater drops, sea urchin larvae change shape, squid metabolisms slow, some brittle stars and barnacles begin to die, and the shells of oyster larvae start dissolving while they form. Indeed, it is this very reason that holds back this industry that sometimes cannot fill all the orders that come in. It is hoped that funding can be gained to develop their own source of seed.
So what do we do? We all burn fuel for heat and transportation. Most of us use a large amount of fuel to make a living. Well, we can use what we do more efficiently and prudently. We can support those that are trying to determine the extent of the acidification. Without good, sound science, how can we hope to manage our fisheries in a sustainable manner? Good science requires monitoring, and although there is some going on in Alaska, the effort, though of very high quality, needs to be expanded. Jeremy Mathis has been running the Ocean Acidification Research Center out of the School of Fisheries at UAF for several years and is developing a baseline for the high Arctic. The funds have come from National Science Foundation money of which Alaska only received 5 percent of the total allotted for our nation. This is a start, but given the fact that Alaska has 8 of the top 20 seafood-producing ports in America, it seems inadequate.
What we need is a program that will support buoys throughout the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. The program was proposed by UAF and submitted to the governor in the Regent’s Request. The governor pulled the funding out and sent his capital budget to the Legislature without this important piece. The fishing community in Alaska is getting shortchanged of an important piece of fisheries forecasting. This baseline would help the Department of Fish and Game, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the International Pacific Halibut Commission do their work. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to acquire this knowledge.
There is an effort to restore these funds going on in Juneau right now. The capital budget is in the Senate Finance Committee and the chairs and members of the committee should be contacted and told we need to put this research funding back into the budget. In addition to this request, we should ask Rep. Paul Seaton to schedule hearings in the House Resources Committee on House Joint Resolution 10, which is a resolution supporting expanded research into ocean acidification in Alaska. There is a lot to learn on this subject and I want to know more about what is going on in my backyard. I want to be able to pass on the joy of clams, crab, and oysters on to my grandchildren. In addition to these shellfish wonders, I want to assure healthy salmon runs for generations. The food chain that supports our world-class salmon runs depends on the very smallest of shell-making organisms, the pteropod. I want to know more, don’t you? Make the call. Ask your representatives in Juneau to do the right thing and support this expanded research of ocean acidification. Call your local Legislative Information Office if you need more info on how to contact your legislators.
• Wedin owns and operates a salmon and halibut charter fishing boat. He has four grandchildren who love to fish, with another on the way.
Comments (29)
Add commentWe need a different Governor
We need to elect a different Governor in 2014 if not before.
Our state has been handicapped by Sean Parnell. He does not embrace science, he puts people in key positions that do not embrace science & he recently ripped the words for the needs of "future generations" out from the Dept. of Natural Resources mission statement.
Sean Parnell runs our state like a soulless corporation that is in business to make profit for any and all industries with no regard for the needs of our future generations.
Parnell also works to silence the voice of concerned Alaskans. Parnell is in direct violation of our states constitution
Alaska is in BIG trouble right now and we need all hands on deck addressing it we need science, we need the feds and we need the voices of every concerned Alaskan.
Our Reps should get a bill out before the end of this session that puts in motion a law and a plan that ends the TON of chlorine & the tons of other toxins that are dumped every single day into Cook Inlet and around our state. WE can do something and we must do something to address our environmental problems. It is our duty, our responsibility, our moral obligation to do everything we can!
Bah!
Who needs the ocean anyway? The shellfish will adapt...won't they?
Close Lat 58
More likely a group of species that have an advantage in a more acidic ocean environment will increase in abundance as those species that depend on a calcium carbonate shell will decrease in abundance. In short, the adaptation already exists in the gene pool, but it does not provide to be an evolutionary advantage under the current environmental forces. But as the environment changes, those once useless adaptations may prove advantageous. It's all happened before, but the assumption that must be made is that the gene pool is sufficiently robust to handle the coming bottle neck of ocean acidification. Keep your fingers crossed.
It's not quite correct to use "adapt" in that context
I know your comment was sarcastic (or I hope it was) but it still indicates a mistaken understanding of how evolution by natural selection operates.
An organism's genes are selected for, not individuals themselves.
For example, there is no indication that the last few passenger pigeons gave any consideration to the fact that adapting immediately to their circumstance and producing more offspring might have staved off their species' extinction.
So no, the shellfish would do nothing.
Mike
Does that dog hunt?
Just as an exercise, each of you reach out with one hand and grab 12,000 molecules of air. It's OK, it won't hurt you. Now carefully, without spilling any, take a look. 4 of those molecules are carbon dioxide. Now, very, very carefully, grab one of those. That represents the supposed increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There it is folks, the culprit of climate change, global warming, worsening hurricanes, the death of polar bears, and, apparently, global ocean acidification.
Cite your sources
Akjim- cite your sources, proportion justifications, and impact assessments.
akjm = Sean Parnall's thought
akjm = Sean Parnall's thought process. This is the type of mind that is running our state, this type of mind simply does not care.
The corporation = The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
As a legal entity, a corporation has as its edict one and only one goal, to create profits for its shareholders, without legal or moral obligation to the welfare of workers, the environment, or the well-being of society as a whole.
Competition and self-interest dominate, and other aspects of human nature, such as creativity, empathy, and the ability to live in harmony with the earth, are suppressed and even ridiculed.
The corporation is a book by: Joel Balkan
Cites
Numerous sources can give one the current estimation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's a trace gas, running between 360 and 380 ppm depending on the exact source. The estimate, again according to multiple sources, of increase since pre-industrial times runs from about 25% to 36%. (EPA says 36%, so you can make your own decision). Interesting enough much of the CO2 testing is done at Mauna Loa Observatory. Anyone see a problem with this?
As for mouse's silly comments, that's no problem with me. Liberal global warming alarmists wish to put forth a theory, have everyone live to their standard, and ignore any potential issues. Gov. Parnell and I most likely agree that actual scientific evidence, more than unproven theories, should be our guide. And that's just dandy with me. If anyone can actually show that a minor trace gas can do everything it is being accused of, please feel free to put forth that evidence. No one has thus far.
Sean Parnell needs to go back
Sean Parnell needs to go back and work for the oil companies, because he has no business running our state. The only stakeholders he's concerned about in Alaska are those that belong to a resource extraction corporation.
Interesting
Simply asking for scientific support for an assertion gets some thumbs down. I'd say that in and of itself speaks volumes, not to mention the utter absurdity of the cited statistics.
For the record: the current proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 391 ppm (parts per million), meaning 0.0391%.
Akjim's "12,000 air molecules" would therefore contain 469.2 CO2 molecules, not four.
Pre-industrial levels of CO2 (1000 b.c.e - 1750 b.c.e) = 280 ppm or 0.0280% or 336 CO2 molecules from Akjim's handful of 12,000 "air molecules".
Increase: 469.2 - 336 = 133.2. 133.2/336 = 39.64% increase between today and pre-industrial levels.
akjim - I am shaking my head
akjim - I am shaking my head in utter disbelief. OMG! (my head in hand covering my eyes)
Hey akjim
Felt I needed to point out, you made a tiny error in your exercise. Those four molecules you were grabbing out of the 12,000 weren't CO2, they were cyanide.
But no biggy! Four out of 12,000 of anything can't do ANY harm at that concentration, right?
Oh, what's that you say? Hmmm, indeed... Seems that we were mistaken. We're already dead.
Who knew that small concentrations of stuff had such big consequences?
@akjim: let's do a thought
@akjim: let's do a thought experiment, since you seem to think what seems like a small increase in CO2 compared to other gases (such as nitrogen and oxygen, which do not act as greenhouse gases) renders the idea of global warming incorrect.
On average, per year, a square mile of the Earth's surface receives about 10 trillion watt hours of energy from the sun (give or take, depending on your latitude). About 30% of that is reflected, for a net of 7 trillion watt hours of energy.
CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas, but it is an important one (water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas). Right now, it traps about 7.4% of the energy that makes it to the Earth, or 518 billion watts/sq. mile.
I will use a conservative estimate to show how this number changes with increasing CO2 concentrations. According to the study below, doubling current CO2 levels would result in about .6% more energy being trapped. Doesn't seem like a lot, but it amounts to an additional 4.9 billion watts/sq. mile annually. That is a lot of energy, all in the form of heat. Every year. And I won't even bring up feedback loops (higher temperatures means more water vapor, which means more greenhouse gases).
http://climateclash.com/?p=585
Still think that small changes don't mean anything? If you don't understand the Earth's energy balance or that small changes over periods of time become large changes, don't form opinions related to these concepts.
...never argue with a drunk...
Or, someone who has "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid." as an epithet. Do you really think his purpose is to rationally discuss this article?
Terming concern and public discussion on the possibility of losing some of the oceans' ecological carrying capacity as "alarmist"...well, it just shows where he's coming from.
Fun
It's so much fun to watch global warming alarmists twist themselves around trying to prove a theory that even their own "scientists" can't provide evidence of. And that's entirely without requiring them to explain past increases of global temperatures without human interaction, or even having them explain how the base formulas actually work when they don't even take into account CO2 loss out of the atmosphere (extraterrestrial loss). I supposed they were hit in the head so often with that hockey stick theory they still see stars. But no matter, it's not as if a liberal has ever let facts, or the lack there of, get in the way of a perfectly good tool to control the masses.
So Jim ~
Where are your scientific papers and research supporting the idea that human beings do not affect climate?? I'm assuming you have many of those, given your insistence on "facts".
We can start with solar forcing:
Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schussler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004), "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" Nature 431: 1084-1087
Solanki, Sami K.; Krivova, Natalia A. (2003), "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?" Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (A5)
A summary of a Harold Jeffery's lecture presented by Solanki in 2002. http://noorderlicht.vpro.nl/attachment.db/18258097/Solanki.pdf
Bard, Eduard, and Frank, Martin. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: what's new under the sun? Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 248, Issues 1-2
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/Bard06EPSL.pdf
Lockwood, Mike, and Frohlich, Klaus. 2007. Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society A
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/ReadingsLockwood2007_Recent_o...
Scafetta, N., and West, B.J. 2006 Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed
Northern Hemisphere temperature record. Geophysical Research Letters
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_20.
Haigh, J.D., Winning, A.R., Toumi, R., and Harder, J.W. 2010. An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcings of cliimate. Nature 467: 696 - 699
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
@akjim: there is no
@akjim: there is no extraterrestrial loss of CO2. Are you not aware that most of the gases in our atmosphere are lighter than CO2 and would escape at a faster rate if such a thing were even happening?
There is a lot evidence for climate change. Such as the fact that temperatures are rising quite fast. As are CO2 concentrations. And the fact that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas.
You could have consulted any of the thousands of papers on climate change for the evidence you want, but then you wouldn't be able to make such asinine statements without feeling like a liar.
Anyone who has been trapped
Anyone who has been trapped in a small enclosed space with someone who lets a big juicy f@rt knows exactly what the impact of a "minor trace gas" can be.
How soon we forget...
391 ppm = 0.00391 = 0.4% (about 50 molecules out of 12,600)
CO2 increase accounts for about 1 degree warming (the physics); skeptic/believer dispute is about the feedbacks. IPCC guessed "big, positive" as reflected in their models (the speculation). Others say mildly positive to negative based on observations (the data).
Acid = lower than pH 7; ocean pH = 8.14 (down from 8.25 since 1751 per wiki)
Different critters, differing responses. Examples:
Range, P., Chicharo, M.A., Ben-Hamadou, R., Pilo, D., Matias, D., Joaquim, S., Oliveira, A.P. and Chicharo, L. 2011. Calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile clams Ruditapes decussatus under increased pCO2 and reduced pH: Variable responses to ocean acidification at local scales? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 396: 177-184.
From CO2 Science: "At the conclusion of their experiment, the eight researchers say that they found 'no differences among pH treatments in terms of net calcification, size or weight of the clams,' disproving the first two of their three hypotheses. Their third hypothesis also proved to be wrong -- doubly wrong, in fact -- for not only was juvenile clam mortality not increased in the low pH seawater, they say that mortality was significantly reduced in the acidified treatments, which was something they describe as a truly 'unexpected result.'"
and
Scripps, "High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison":
In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century.
It was my calculator's fault!
Actually, 391 ppm = 0.0391% or five molecules!
If life is tougher when you're stupid.....
I can't imagine how hard it must be for someone who believes we are losing CO2 into space. Poor guy.
louskannen
One experiment a scientific fact does not make. While interesting, you failed to read the actual paper, instead copy and pasting a snippet from a website. Here's part of the conclusion:
"Our findings further suggest that, even for the same species or process, the responses may be variable at local scales, which emphasizes the danger of extrapolating results from a few model species or from one region to another (CIESM, 2008). [...] Organisms inhabiting these areas are naturally exposed to greater variations in terms of seawater carbonate chemistry, relative to the open ocean, which is likely to affect their sensitivity to future ocean acidification (Gazeau et al.,2010)."
The likelihood that the test organisms are naturally more resistant to changes in pH is a PRETTY IMPORTANT DETAIL.
Here's a literature review on the subject:
"With such a range of responses across life history stages, phyla, species and geographic regions, recent meta-analyses have once again attempted to draw conclusions on the sensitivity to elevated CO2 of different developmental stages of marine organisms [13-16] with conflicting conclusions. In the most extensive meta-analysis [16] when all taxonomic groups (calcifying algae, corals, coccolithophores, molluscs, echinoderms, crustaceans, fishes, fleshy algae and seagrasses) were combined, survival (42 results—R, 32 species—S), growth (86R, 38S), calcification (63R, 37S) and reproduction (12R, 8S) were all negatively affected by acidification, whereas photosynthesis (45R, 20S) was positively
affected."
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/4/1005/pdf
The takeaway point is this: marine organisms are adapted to a certain pH. Changing that level of acidity will likely be detrimental to the majority of those organisms, particularly marine crustaceans and corals. I'm sure you'd like this to be a political issue you can just argue or deny into non-existence, but unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that.
Fun
It's fun to know the hypocrites on this site have no problems spending their PFD oil money on gasoline or airline tickets to save their mother earth!!
That's spelled "hypocrites,"
That's spelled "hypocrites," and we all are. It's unrealistic to expect environmentally conscious individuals to give up every tool they have at their disposal to promote change.
This is a global issue that requires change on a social level, and railing against individuals for not giving up everything and living off the land is a bit tawdry, don't you think?
Pers
There you go! "Y"
Let me see...
1. Lou (wherever he is) is perfectly correct re: my % error. Good catch! I humble myself before your art and craft.
2. "The sky is not falling"...until marine populations crash, moratoriums are placed on commercially fished species, and people like Rough Cut scream "Why didn't those damned scientific liberals do anything about this?!?!"
I think Rough Cut will be too
I think Rough Cut will be too busy blaming the government to stop and think about cause and effect.