Science Academies Unite to Save Oceans

[Staff]

Science Academies Unite to Save Oceans
Experts from 70 nations urge CO2 cuts to slow deadly acidification
By Lauren Morello
June 1, 2009

Science Academies Unite to Save Oceans: Scientific American
excerpt from above:

Carbon dioxide emissions are turning the world's oceans more acidic, endangering coral reefs and fisheries, the science academies of 70 nations warned today in a joint statement.

The effect could be irreversible for tens of thousands of years, the academies said. They urged countries attending U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany, this week to cut the world's CO2 emissions at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, with additional cuts after that.

[Staff]

Ocean Acidification: Impact On Key Organisms Of Oceanic Fauna May Be Worse Than Predicted

ScienceDaily (Sep. 15, 2009) — In addition to global warming, carbon dioxide emissions cause another, less well-known but equally serious and worrying phenomenon: ocean acidification. Researchers in the Laboratoire d'Océanographie at Villefranche (LOV) (CNRS / UPMC) have just demonstrated that key marine organisms, such as deep-water corals and pteropods (shelled pelagic mollusks) will be profoundly affected by this phenomenon during the years to come.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915101359.htm
excerpt from above:

These first results raise major concerns about the future of pteropods, deep-water corals and the organisms that depend on them for nutrition or habitat. Research programs such as EPOCA, coordinated by CNRS, are planning new studies on other marine organisms and ecosystems. They are carrying out long-term experiments to study the combined impact of ocean acidification and other parameters that will also be modified during the decades to come, such as temperature and nutrient concentrations.

Ocean acidification can only be controlled by limiting future atmospheric levels of CO2.

Negotiations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (COP 15) are under way and should be finalized in Copenhagen next December. These negotiations must take account not only of increased temperature but also of the acidic nature of CO2 which, once absorbed by the oceans, will have potentially dramatic effects on numerous marine organisms and ecosystems.

[Equilibrium]

The 1st article should have been titled, ‘Science Academies are United by the UN to Save The Kyoto Protocol’. The 2nd article spells out their goal, “Ocean acidification can only be controlled by limiting future atmospheric levels of CO2.” Copenhagen is behind us but…. the UN is working overtime promoting their “programme” utilizing HADCRUT data models, ‘Proof on the Half Shell: A More Acidic Ocean Corrodes Sea Life’, Proof on the Half Shell: A More Acidic Ocean Corrodes Sea Life: Scientific American, “Howard says that CO2 emissions must be cut or captured and stored permanently in some fashion to halt this gradual acidification of the world's oceans. In the meantime, he adds, it's likely that many of the other shell-building oceanic animals are suffering similar fates as G. bulloides.”
--
UN scientists are calling for $$$ for a “global” monitoring system of the oceans to help fight anthropogenic global warming, Speed installation of system to monitor vital signs of global ocean, scientists urge, “The cost to create an adequate monitoring system has been estimated at $10 billion to $15 billion in assets, with $5 billion in annual operating costs…. Says Foundation Director Dr. Peter Burkill: "Ocean acidification could have a devastating effect on calcifying organisms, and perhaps marine ecosystems as a whole, and we need global monitoring to provide timely information on trends and fluxes from the tropics to the poles.”
--
The doomsday computerized projections of our future IF they don’t get money to fight “acid” oceans resulting from AGW isn’t anything new for the UN and it’s “stakeholders” but… I found comments to the article in which some of the “science” relied upon by the UN for their State of the Marine Environment report was challenged, “Math U say? Here ya go: 320ppm to 386ppm = difference of 66ppm - that's an 0.0066% increase in the concentration of CO2, no? Your 1000ppm is an increase of over 300%. That's 50,000 times the increase experienced over the last 50 years! Very realistic, huh?
--
Here's a little unrealistic calculation that I did: If you were to heat ALL the atmospheric CO2 to 1000deg, the resulting rise in the world temperature would be 0.35deg. Of course this isn't possible, but it demonstrates the tiny effect that even radical changes in trace gases can have on world climate. The concentration is just too low for any realistic effect. Wanna check MY math? NeoGuru@aol.com”. That comment sums up major “issues” with the UN’s corrosive and acidic ocean “science” without even mentioning the current pH of the oceans… effects of increased PCBs or….. natural carbon cycling.
--
Another article, ‘Coral can recover from climate change damage’, Research news - University of Exeter, “Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate aquatic ecosystems..” Add the fruits of Greenpeace’s research to Exeter’s research, Sewage, Coastal Destruction Threaten Marine Life - spangy - Greenpeace USA Blog, “Sewage is a growing threat to oceans and seas, putting at risk marine life and habitats as the pollution problem escalates… The report estimated that an additional $56 billion is needed annually to address the global sewage problem… The report also noted increasing levels of pollutants from sources like agricultural fertilizer, manure, sewage and fossil fuel burning, with the problem spreading from developed to developing countries as well”
--
Why no mention of Exeter or Greenpeace’s research in the UN’s call to CO² arms to save the oceans by creating a “global” monitoring system that…. the UN would control? I think the reason is that the “global” pH monitoring system that…. the UN wants that… the UN would control that does zip nadda nothing to conserve our oceans because…. it’s riddled with too many loopholes that benefit their “stakeholders”. One of the loopholes protects the fishing rights of BigBus in “developing” countries which is probably why there’s no mention of Exeter’s research. But what about Greenpeace’s research? I think there’s no mention of their research because it didn’t conclude that the worst threat to the oceans was rising CO2 either. Instead of spending billions funding another UN agency (POGO) to “monitor”… er uh… measure the pH in the oceans “globally” which would cost by their own estimates between 35B- 65B in the 1st 5 years….. would there be anything so wrong with focusing countries on “meaningful” environmental actions like ending bleaching practices… decreasing dependencies on agricultural fertilizers and…. addressing sewage>>>? Oh…. the UN can’t do that until they legally bind all nations to their treaties…. without legally binding mandates…. they can’t make any money off of that kinda “good work” or protect the interests of their “stakeholders”… the “elite” via their compulsory and binding dispute settlement “programme”.
--
Soooooooo….. I guess the poorest of the poor living in filth and destitution are supposed to be grateful for the crumbs the UN is willing to provide for the environments they depend on for survival…. testing ocean pH “globally” at a cost of billions.

[Staff]

CORAL REEF KILL - WORLDWIDE (02): VIRUSES?
Published Date: 2012-04-02 02:25:52
Subject: PRO> Coral reef kill - worldwide (02): viruses?
Archive Number: 20120402.1087679

ProMED-mail |
excerpt from above:

I read with interest the recent posting about herpes and coral disease. Clearly coral reefs globally are in a parlous state, and in many cases, diseases of unknown etiology are playing a major role. Unfortunately, studies such as the one recently posted (and others involving bacteria) do little to shed light on the issue and actually detract from the fundamental question which is, at the cellular level, what is killing corals...