Greg,
Ocean Scientists need to do a better job of explaining that "hands-off-the-oceans" isn't working, ocean science and engineering is at the beginning of the learning curve with way more opportunity for Earth and Water saving results than terrestrial research. Also, ocean-based research toward greenhouse gas issues will solve more immediate needs for food, fresh water, and energy.
Traditional Marine Sanctuaries are not
The world’s oceans are in peril from warming, acidification,
contaminants in terrestrial runoff, overfishing, etc. Of these perils, there is no prospect of
marine sanctuary safe from warming and acidification, both of which result from
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Warming presents several dangers: 1) organisms
are weakened or die from heat stress; 2) warmer water holds less dissolved
oxygen (fish die); 3) less oxygen means less ammonia converted to nitrate (more
toxins, less plant food); 4) less oxygen favors more conversion of nitrate to
nitrogen gas (less plant food). Acidification weakens and kills shell-forming
creatures causing mass extinctions up the food chain.
Warming from increased CO2 in the atmosphere lags
fossil fuel burning by a few decades and persists for a millennium. The pH reduction spreads through the oceans
more quickly, but is also not instantaneous.
Even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels today, the ocean continues
warming and pH dropping such that traditional Marine Sanctuaries might delay,
but won’t prevent mass extinctions within and around them.
Actively managed Marine Sanctuaries can be
Actively managed
Marine Sanctuaries, ecosystem seaweed farming, can be oases for diverse sea life
with cool, oxygen-rich, higher pH.water.
Seaweed absorb CO2
and emit O2 during
photosynthesis. Less dissolved CO2 means higher pH water for more robust
shell-forming. More dissolved O2 means fish can breathe, ammonia gets
converted to nitrate, more nitrate remains to sustain plant growth. The need for cooling is temporary, perhaps a
few weeks per year now, increasing to a few months per year within a century.
Actively managed
Marine Sanctuaries are more easily established when they address other pressing
human and ocean issues: food; fresh water; excess nutrient deadzones;
overfishing; etc.
Some
Ocean Foresters are involved in a trial of this concept with the University of
Washington and the Puget Sound Restoration Fund.
Other human issues put pressure on oceans
Humanity already
sees strife and hunger due to population increase, expectations increase, greenhouse
gases, fresh water shortage, and fresh water uncertainty. While attempting to grow more terrestrial
foods, humanity creates ocean dead zones and overdrafts groundwater
supplies. The increased atmospheric CO2
makes it harder for terrestrial farmers to obtain bank loans because the
farmers (and the banks) cannot count on historic weather. (Plant a drought tolerant crop or a flood
tolerant crop?) The United Nations is
predicting population will peak near 10 billion people around 2050, but with
food and energy expectations nearer to the expectations of double today’s 7
billion.
Mark
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [geo] Contrasting futures for ocean and society from
different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios Carbon emissions and
their ocean impacts
From: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, July 03, 2015 12:20 pm
To: geoengineering <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Thanks, Andrew. From the paper:
"Management options
Limiting the effects of ocean warming and acid- ification is critical considering the widespread risks of impacts facing natural and human sys- tems, even under a stringent emissions scenario (RCP2.6; Fig. 2). A growing body of literature presents options for action in response to climate change and ocean acidification (143–145). Draw- ing on Billé et al. (146), these actions can be clus- tered in four groups (Fig. 4): reducing the drivers of climate change and ocean acidification (mit- igate), building or maintaining resilience in eco- systems (protect), adapting human societies (adapt), and repairing damage that has already occurred (repair). At present, only one of these (reducing CO2 emissions) addresses the fundamental prob- lem; the others merely delay or decrease impacts (e.g., protecting reefs from major disturbances such as coral mining). Some actions rely on readi- ly available technologies (e.g., sewage treatment plants to reduce
exacerbating effects of coastal nutrient pollution) and socioeconomic mecha- nisms (e.g., coastal setback zones), whereas more engineering-intensive techniques are being devel- oped and will require testing (e.g., removal of CO2 from the atmosphere). These options inter- act. For example, reducing secondary environmen- tal stressors so as to retain ecosystem resilience works over some range of PCO2 values but is ul- timately relevant only if ocean warming and acidification are drastically limited. One cannot manage coral reef resilience, for example, if there are no healthy reefs remaining (46). Importantly, some policy options are antagonistic: For exam- ple, solar radiation management could limit the increase of surface temperature but would reduce the incentive to cut greenhouse gases emissions, including CO2, thereby providing no relief from ocean acidification (147).
A positive development is that a widening range of stakeholders are testing new practices or reviving old ones, including CO2 extraction from seawater (148), assisted evolution of corals (149), coral farming (150), and customary local management (151). Such field tests provide use- able information and tools for decision-makers and climate negotiators as to the costs, benefits, and timing of management options. Aquaculture, for example, has shown some potential to reduce the risk of impacts from climate change and ocean acidification through societal adaptation, such as improved monitoring and changing cultured species or farm locations (127, 152). However, the cost of adaptation measures—such as real- time monitoring of water chemistry—can be prohibitive and not within the reach of most aquaculture operations, especially those in the
developing world. Ecosystem-based adaptation— or using ecosystems to reduce the vulnerability of people—appears to offer cost-efficient solu- tions bringing multiple co-benefits, especially for developing countries and marginalized commu- nities (153). Stimulating ecosystem resilience by reducing the number and magnitude of local stressors and setting up marine protected areas (154) with strictly enforced no-take areas and limited pollutant inputs also stand out as tract- able priorities. Moreover, some regions and local areas that are relatively less exposed to warming, hypoxia, and acidification could be climate change refugia, where more favorable environmental con- ditions would enable survival under CO2-driven impacts (155). Thus, identifying these climate change refugia and conserving biodiversity there contribute to building resilience to climate change (156). Nevertheless, all of these options require ap- propriate policy frameworks and
financial com- mitments to cover transaction and opportunity costs, surveillance, and enforcement and moni- toring and likely offer only limited protection in the face of persistent climate change and ocean acidification.
As the ocean warms and acidifies, the range of protection, adaptation, and repair options—and our confidence in those options—dwindles, while the cost of remaining options skyrockets. Lower- emissions scenarios such as RCP2.6 leave society with a greater number of effective options for safeguarding marine ecosystems and the services they provide. Therefore, actions that do not re-
duce carbon emissions are meaningful ocean management options only if the future climate regime entails ambitious national contributions toward the phaseout of global CO2 emissions as well as a strong funding mechanism and a rele- vant framework to support on-the-ground imple- mentation of these options."
GR - Basically downplays alternative CO2/climate management methods in order make the case that drastic emissions reduction - adhering to RCP 2.6 or better - is our only option. Instead, what needs to be said is that it is now very unlikely that we can or will achieve RCP 2.6 regardless of what happens at COP 21, that additional, new mitigation/management methods are needed, and immediate R&D investments in these are required. Apparently, a global catastrophe is needed before this line of thinking becomes mainstream, which by then will be too late. Indeed, "One cannot manage coral reef resilience, for example, if there are no healthy reefs remaining".
So if one truly values the ocean, isn't time to stop clinging to the hope that emissions reduction is going to singlehandedly save the day, and start actively searching for additional remedies, not downplaying their relevance? "As the ocean warms and acidifies, the range of protection, adaptation, and repair options—and our confidence in those options—dwindles, while the cost of remaining options skyrockets." Since so little research has been conducted, how do we know that these options will be too expensive (relative to the alternative - failed emissions reduction?) and don't deserve our confidence? Even if the quote is true, isn't this a clarion call to search for and test out better, cheaper, faster, higher capacity options?*
Greg
*
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html
http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-5784-4_54
http://www.pgafamilyfoundation.org/oceanchallenge/
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 7/3/15, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: [geo] Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios Carbon emissions and their ocean impacts
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, July 3, 2015, 12:45 AM
Poster's note :
relevant to CDR particularly, but also somewhat to SRM, and
marine BECCS.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/349/6243/aac4722.abstract?sid=4d57e97f-8860-4a5d-8863-9d80373ed461
Science 3 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6243
DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4722
Contrasting futures for ocean and society from
different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios
Carbon emissions and their ocean impacts
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions directly affect
atmospheric chemistry but also have a strong influence on
the oceans. Gattuso et al. review how the physics,
chemistry, and ecology of the oceans might be affected based
on two CO2 emission trajectories: one business as usual and
one with aggressive reductions. Ocean warming,
acidification, sea-level rise, and the expansion of oxygen
minimum zones will continue to have distinct impacts on
marine communities and ecosystems. The path that humanity
takes regarding CO2 emissions will largely determine the
severity of these phenomena.
Structured Abstract
BACKGROUND
Although the ocean moderates anthropogenic
climate change, this has great impacts on its fundamental
physics and chemistry, with important consequences for
ecosystems and people. Yet, despite the ocean’s critical
role in regulating climate—and providing food security and
livelihoods for millions of people—international climate
negotiations have only minimally considered impacts on the
ocean. Here, we evaluate changes to the ocean and its
ecosystems, as well as to the goods and services they
provide, under two contrasting CO2 scenarios: the current
high-emissions trajectory (Representative Concentration
Pathway 8.5, RCP8.5) and a stringent emissions scenario
(RCP2.6) consistent with the Copenhagen Accord of keeping
mean global temperature increase below 2°C in the 21st
century. To do this, we draw on the consensus science in the
latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and papers published since the
assessment.
ADVANCES
Warming and acidification of surface ocean
waters will increase proportionately with cumulative CO2
emissions (see figure). Warm-water corals have already been
affected, as have mid-latitude seagrass, high-latitude
pteropods and krill, mid-latitude bivalves, and fin fishes.
Even under the stringent emissions scenario (RCP2.6),
warm-water corals and mid-latitude bivalves will be at high
risk by 2100. Under our current rate of emissions, most
marine organisms evaluated will have very high risk of
impacts by 2100 and many by 2050. These results—derived
from experiments, field observations, and modeling—are
consistent with evidence from high-CO2 periods in the
paleorecord.
Impacts to the ocean’s ecosystem services follow a
parallel trajectory. Services such as coastal protection and
capture fisheries are already affected by ocean warming and
acidification. The risks of impacts to these services
increase with continued emissions: They are predicted to
remain moderate for the next 85 years for most services
under stringent emission reductions, but the
business-as-usual scenario (RCP8.5) would put all ecosystem
services we considered at high or very high risk over the
same time frame. These impacts will be cumulative or
synergistic with other human impacts, such as
overexploitation of living resources, habitat destruction,
and pollution. Fin fisheries at low latitudes, which are a
key source of protein and income for millions of people,
will be at high risk.
OUTLOOK
Four key messages emerge. First, the ocean
strongly influences the climate system and provides
important services to humans. Second, impacts on key marine
and coastal organisms, ecosystems, and services are already
detectable, and several will face high risk of impacts well
before 2100, even under the low-emissions scenario (RCP2.6).
These impacts will occur across all latitudes, making this a
global concern beyond the north/south divide. Third,
immediate and substantial reduction of CO2 emissions is
required to prevent the massive and mostly irreversible
impacts on ocean ecosystems and their services that are
projected with emissions greater than those in RCP2.6.
Limiting emissions to this level is necessary to meet stated
objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change; a substantially different ocean would result
from any less-stringent emissions scenario. Fourth, as
atmospheric CO2 increases, protection, adaptation, and
repair options for the ocean become fewer and less
effective.
The ocean provides compelling arguments for rapid reductions
in CO2 emissions and eventually atmospheric CO2 drawdown.
Hence, any new global climate agreement that does not
minimize the impacts on the ocean will be inadequate.
Changes in ocean physics and chemistry and
impacts on organisms and ecosystem services according to
stringent (RCP2.6) and high business-as-usual (RCP8.5) CO2
emissions scenarios.
Changes in temperature (∆T) and pH (∆pH) in
2090 to 2099 are relative to preindustrial (1870 to 1899).
Sea level rise (SLR) in 2100 is relative to 1901. RCP2.6 is
much more favorable to the ocean, although important
ecosystems, goods, and services remain vulnerable, and
allows more-efficient management options. l, m, h: low,
mid-, and high latitudes, respectively.
Abstract
The ocean moderates anthropogenic climate
change at the cost of profound alterations of its physics,
chemistry, ecology, and services. Here, we evaluate and
compare the risks of impacts on marine and coastal
ecosystems—and the goods and services they provide—for
growing cumulative carbon emissions under two contrasting
emissions scenarios. The current emissions trajectory would
rapidly and significantly alter many ecosystems and the
associated services on which humans heavily depend. A
reduced emissions scenario—consistent with the Copenhagen
Accord’s goal of a global temperature increase of less
than 2°C—is much more favorable to the ocean but still
substantially alters important marine ecosystems and
associated goods and services. The management options to
address ocean impacts narrow as the ocean warms and
acidifies. Consequently, any new climate regime that fails
to minimize ocean impacts would be incomplete and
inadequate.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
