http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Quoting a new study to be published in Science, the article says that these low-oxygen events are likely to become even more frequent, causing enormous damage to sea life and the Pacific Ecosystem.
"Levels of oxygen in the summertime have suddenly become much lower than levels in the previous 50 years," Lubchenco said. "And 2006 broke all records, with parts of the shallow shelf actually becoming anoxic, meaning that they lacked oxygen altogether. We've never seen that before."...
"People keep asking us, 'Is this situation really all that different or not?'" Lubchenco said. "Now we have the answer to that question, and it's an unequivocal 'yes.' The low oxygen levels we've measured in the last six years are abnormally low for our system. We haven't seen conditions like this in many, many decades, and now with varying intensity we've seen them in each of the last six summers."
In these events, water oxygen levels have repeatedly reached hypoxic levels, below which most marine animals suffocate or are severely stressed if they cannot escape the area. If oxygen levels drop to zero, most animals die. The massive 2006 event covered at least 3,000 square kilometers, lasted for four months, and occupied up to 80 percent of the water column in shallow shelf areas, the report said. Fish either died or fled these areas, thousands of crabs died, and marine seafloor life that could not move faced almost total mortality. Recovery has been slow.
How much more damage will we do to our planet before we are past the point where recovery is possible?
Right now, all I have to say is this (GW) is all very fascinating, complex and unfortunately, very confusing.
1. Support candidates who are willing to face the tough choices that may be needed. Such as raising the current CAFE standards or investing in new technologies.
2. Consider the effect, if possible, of your consumption patterns. If you are buying a new car, do you need a bigger car or SUV?
3. Keep informed. Don't ignore the problem and hope it will go away. And don't think that a slogan can give you all the answers. The ecosystem is a fine balance and we are continually learning more. Yesterday's solutions need to be looked at with fresh eyes to see if they still make sense in light of new information.
I hope that helps. I know there are people on RK who can give more detailed answers than I can.
PS - my crack about slogans has nothing to do with the current political situation. I have a cousin who claimed to be an environmentalist even though she understood none of the science. She had some pre-programmed answers to the world's problems. As I told her, "If you think you have all the answers, you didn't fully understand the questions."
How much more damage will we do to our planet before we are past the point where recovery is possible?
If the development noted in that blog article continues , it could surely have an impact on policymaking which affects all of us, would it not? Is ignoring what the "other side" is doing prudent, not that I'm second guessing what I understand, but are we all climatologists that we don't need to understand all topics on the matter? Instead you replied to my post with a comment not quite in snyc at all with the context I posted.
FG, Keeping your head in the sand won't make the problem go away. That is the Bush approach to global warming, an approach that has set us back 8 years on finding real solutions.
If you are only going to surround yourself with what you already know, how are you going to learn? Reading and discussing something that runs against AGW doesn't mean you're are now a skeptic and no longer "green" for heaven's sake. This kind of assumption happens alot in this blog and its a shame.
For exampke, like Dominion's Wise Co proposal, only knowing one-side of the matter doesn't provide a complete understanding of the challenges the proposal's opponents face. Without understanding what it behind Dominion's actions, will not lead to solutions which are convincing to others who do.
I don't think I'm the one with my head in the sand.