Beneath Arctic ice, scientists find an ecosystem never imagined (+video) from Christian Science Monitor
Beneath Arctic ice, scientists find an ecosystem never imagined (+video)
Scientists report finding a massive bloom of phytoplankton hidden under Arctic ice, suggesting that, as the ice thins and melts, the region is becoming vastly more biologically productive.
By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / June 7, 2012
The moon rises over Arctic ice near the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in this file photo.
Lucas Jackson/REUTERS/File
- In Pictures: Arctic Ice
Scientists have discovered a vast pea-soup-green bloom of tiny plant-like marine organisms under Arctic Ocean ice. The bloom represents an enormous, and until now, unknown reservoir of food for marine life in frigid waters at the top of the world
These waters, in sum, appear to be far more biologically productive than previously believed.
"This wasn't just any phytoplankton bloom," says Kevin Arrigo, a Stanford University marine scientist and lead author of the study. "It was literally the most intense phytoplankton bloom I've ever seen in my 25 years of doing this type of research" in oceans around the world.
Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz.
The scientists sampled only a relatively small section of ice above the Arctic basin's continental shelves last summer. But the findings suggest that, where the mix of nutrients and sunlight are right, other areas around the basin could be highly productive as well, the researchers say.
The discovery could help explain why previous groups observing open water concluded that the region wasn't hot spot of biological productivity. And it could explain how the ocean has been absorbing larger quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere than data
could verify, the researchers suggest.
A report on the results from a research cruise aboard the US Coast Guard Ice Breaker Healy last June and July appears in the June 8 issue of the journal Science. The two-year project, known as ICESCAPE, was funded by NASA.
In general, much of what's known about activity at the bottom of the marine food chain in the Arctic has been learned by studying what's happening in open water. That is partly because researchers tend to visit the Arctic in the summer, when sea ice retreats and exposes more open ocean. Moreover, satellites that can measure phytoplankton levels also can't detect what's happening under the ice.
But science, too, suggested that open water was the place to look. Phytoplankton need light, and historically, summer sea ice was thick and – at least early in the melt season – topped with a thick layer of snow. Less than 1 percent of the sunlight hitting the surface made it to the ocean surface underneath, says Don Perovich, a geophysicist at the US Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.
But when the ice breaker turned from the open water of the Chukchi Sea, north of Alaska, and headed into the ice, something unexpected happened.
"I was sure that phytoplankton abundance would drop like a rock," Dr. Arrigo recalls.
Instead, the numbers started to climb until they peaked some 26 miles in from the ice edge. There, the phytoplankton abundance was four time higher than in the open ocean. The layer was about as thick as a five-year-old is tall, Arrigo said, and the waters were as green as pea soup.The right nutrients had been there all along. What was missing was sufficient light, Dr. Perovich says.
Since satellites first began keeping track of the ice in 1979, the extent of summer ice has declined by about 45 percent due to global warming, wind patterns, and pollution that increase melting. These days, much of the sea ice heading into the melt season tends to be no more than about six feet thick, with little or no snow cover. As the ice melts, ponds of meltwater readily form on the surface and act as skylights, Dr. Perovich says.
Now, 43 percent of sunlight reaches the ocean surface, he adds. Plenty of food and light 24/7 is the perfect recipe for megablooms, he says.
The quantities of plankton are "truly exceptional," says Walker Smith, a marine biologist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va., who was not part of the team conducting the research.
If these blooms are widespread under the ice along continental shelves, the primary productivity in these regions could be up to 10 times greater than open-water productivity, the team estimates.
Indeed, the find helps explain why phytoplankton is less abundant in open water: The blooms snag nearly all of the nutrients moving into the basin from the Pacific via the Bering Strait before the ice melts significantly, Arrigo says.
Researchers had interpreted the relative dearth of open-water plankton as a sign of low primary productivity in the Arctic Ocean, but "the real action was going on under the ice," he says. "And where we thought the bloom was beginning when the ice melted, actually the bloom was ending."
In addition, researchers have noted that the Arctic ocean is becoming an enormous sink for atmospheric CO2 as the waters open up in the summer. Yet the open waters in the Chukchi Sea don't show the levels of dissolved CO2 they should if that's the case. Now, it looks as though the answer lies with the under-ice phytoplankton blooms, because they consume the CO2 via photosynthesis, just as land plants do.
More work needs to be done to determine the basinwide extent of the blooms and their timing. Yet the steady retreat of summer sea ice and the increasingly early onset of the melt period raises some troubling prospects, the researchers add.
If the bloom comes earlier, it might occur before the marine creatures who come to feed on it have arrived there to eat. The biggest effect could be on the fish the feed on plankton throughout the water column, rather than on bottom feeders such as whales and walruses, Arrigo says.
Despite the concerns, the thrill of discovery remains an undercurrent as the researchers talk about their results.
"This is what you live for as a scientist," uncovering something "beyond unexpected," Perovich says. "This is a new Arctic Ocean, full of surprises."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0607/Beneath-Arctic...
Read More: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0607/Ben...
“Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), such as when operating a stove or an internal combustion engine in an enclosed space.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant. Every living thing on earth requires it.
There is plenty of knowlege on what CO2 does to plants. It enables them to make food.
I agree there are limits but the earth has experienced many times the amount of CO2 then we have today. CO2 is the best fertilzer on earth and it is free.
If you doubled CO2 from 390 PPM to 800, we wouldn't have to polute our streams, rivers, and oceans with other fetilizers and the price of food would come down because farmers would be able to use less fertilizer.
The reality is that we're heating up the planet, and a hotter planet has a more intense hydrological cycle - i.e. more evaporation, heavier precipitation. There is more water vapour in the atmosphere (measured fact) and that will necessarily continue to rise as the world continues to warm. Some places may get wetter (e.g. the Sahel in Africa) but others will become more drought-stricken (e.g. the American south-west). Increased flooding and drought are not good for farming - agreed? It all depends on how wind and weather patterns change as the world heats up. We're already seeing a change in the Hadley cells and expansion of the tropics, which is why the Mediterranean and US south-west are becoming drier - the rain belts are shifting polewards. Can you really be so sure that this is all a good thing? Most scientists don't think so.
I go with facts not party line.
Hoaxters will say; “ninety percent of scientist support it” That is the fallacy of Ad Populum. Follow the money; it goes to buy Marxist welfare programs. Who supports the hoax, Marxist Liberals? Then look at the dire predictions which are another attribute of a fraud. If it is hot, cold, wet, or dry Hoaxtsers will try to blame it on man made global warming.
You need to produce facts not accusations, fallacies, and name calling.
If a corporation pays 1 dollar in taxes then it receives no corporate welfare.
Corporations pay corporate taxes but not to the US. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world so businesses pay the corporate taxes to other countries using an International accounting procedure called "transfer pricing."
The US has about a 39.6 percent corporate tax rate. Canada has a 16 percent. Therefore, on trade between the US and Canada, both Canadian and American corporations are going to pay the taxes to the Canadian government.
That is also more evidence it is a fraud. People that commit fraud don't like to have a discussion on the fraud. They like to spew accusations just like the Hoaxters do.
What is the scam. I am not getting any money. The Hoax is what produces the money to fund Big Government welfare programs.
Why does Al Gore cut and run everytime someone ask him a question.
Therefore, you have to be saying that stockholders including unions are perpetrating a scam.
Exxon total Equity is worth 154 billion dollars.
Exxon is just one of the oil companies. Do Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have all of their money in Exxon stock?
Your accusation is ridiculous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/env...
The Royal Society is funded by who?
"The Society today acts as a scientific advisor to the British government, receiving a parliamentary grant-in-aid. The Society acts as the UK's Academy of Sciences, and funds research fellowships and scientific start-up companies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Therefore, if the British government funds research for the Hoax, the Society produces Hoax data.
Why won't Al Gore and the Hoaxters debate? Because they would get destroyed in a debate. The only thing that would come out of the debate is that the Hoaxters don't have any facts.
The scam is about Liberals trying to tax CO2 so they can line pockets with welfare.
Karl Marx said; "From those according to their abilities to those according to their needs." Liberals have a lot of needs and few abilities.
Since this is a thread I have created I must interject because I don't like any thread I create devolving. The debate between you, and Lcarus is an interesting one, however the problem you have with your argument is you keep trying to tie this into welfare, those 2 topics have nothing to do with each other, save your rants on welfare for a thread that they are actually relevant, a thread about welfare, this is not a thread about welfare. Unless you've got that the global ruling class is planning to use the carbon tax if they're successful in implementing that to fund welfare programs, that is not relevant to this thread. I do try to encourage people participating in all my threads to stick to the topic at hand.
Most of your other points are solid, the global warming theory has a lot of holes in it, and it needs to be addressed scientifically, I am not one who subscribes to that theory myself.
@lcarus,
Kiosk Kid is right there have been a lot of scientists who are opposed to the global warming theory who are not employees of any petroleum corporation who are have been systematically shut out of debates, and that has to make one wonder, if the scientists who are proponents of this theory are so confident in it, than they why do they shut their opponents out of debates ...
Since this is a thread I have created I must interject because I don't like any thread I create devolving. The debate between you, and Lcarus is an interesting one, however the problem you have with your argument is you keep trying to tie this into welfare, those 2 topics have nothing to do with each other, save your rants on welfare for a thread that they are actually relevant, a thread about welfare, this is not a thread about welfare. Unless you've got that the global ruling class is planning to use the carbon tax if they're successful in implementing that to fund welfare programs, that is not relevant to this thread. I do try to encourage people participating in all my threads to stick to the topic at hand.
Most of your other points are solid, the global warming theory has a lot of holes in it, and it needs to be addressed scientifically, I am not one who subscribes to that theory myself.
@lcarus,
Kiosk Kid is right there have been a lot of scientists who are opposed to the global warming theory who are not employees of any petroleum corporation who are have been systematically shut out of debates, and that has to make one wonder, if the scientists who are proponents of this theory are so confident in it, than they why do they shut their opponents out of debates routinely, why won't the scientific journals publish their writings?
One of the problems with the global warming theory is the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon is NOT a pollutant, it's part of the natural life cycle of this planet, there would be no life on this planet without it, in fact the levels of carbon dioxide on the planet right now are actually too low for plant life to live healthy, and all animal species are very dependent on plant life on this planet, we all should be concerned about the carbon dioxide levels being too low.
I encourage you to read Dr. Tim Ball from Canada who's a climatologist who says that Carbon Dioxide rises and falls with temperature, not the other way around, in other words according to Dr. Ball Carbon Dioxide does NOT affect temperature, temperature affects Carbon Dioxide Levels.
There are many places around the planet that are reporting unusually low temperatures, so that is not consistent with a warming trend.
If we are on a warming planet wide, that doesn't prove anything because Earth's climate cycle is always changing, that's why they have terms like Ice Age, and the terms for hot cycles, and warm cycles(I forget what those terms are) Earth has always gone through climate cycles based on geological factors, and on the Sun, and how much solar energy the Sun is putting out at a given point in time.
Further, it's got to make you wonder when these government, and corporate scientists say that if the temperature rises by 2 degrees celsius, that it will end all life on this planet, really? Seriously? What is that hypothesis based on? 2 degrees? Come On! 2 degrees is not even enough to come close to warming the Arctic, and An Arctic let alone cause uninhabitable heat at the equator, or places near the equator. Some of those claims they're making are at best exaggerated, and worst fear mongering.
What concerns me is as society is wasting time focusing on this global warming that has no scientific basis, there are REAL environmental issues that we're ignoring, that are going to cause us problems if they're not addressed very soon, such as:
1. Monsanto and their frankenstein seeds that are threatening indigenous plant species on the ares where they're being planted! And if we loose indigenous plant species because of Monsanto, do you realize the devastating on the food supply, and on personal freedom that will have for all people of the planet?!! They will have total control of the global food supply, and the ecology of this planet will be trashed!
2. Carbon MONOXIDE! The gas that comes from vehicles, which is a very toxic gas, and is causing a lot of public health problems.
3. The hundreds of thousands of chemicals being produces and put into the air by factories that did not exist a very short time ago, that are contributing significantly to public health problems.
And I'l stop here because I could keep going with a very long list. The point I'm making here is, there are REAL environmental issues that we're ignoring that demand addressing very soon because the government, and corporate, and academic institutions scientists are distracting our attention by having us overly worried about the weather!
A scientific mind questions everything.
Where does the money go that is collected from a tax on CO2? What does the money buy?
Today, the UN is discussing taxing the internet to raise funds. The Hoax has been put on the back burner because it has failed since Copenhagen.
The UN wants a steady source of fund to line their pockets and fund welfare programs rather then relying on governments to provide funds.
The Hoax was the first example but now we have the internet tax and a income tax on "rich" countries.
BTW, you did try to treat us equally. You did make a comment to him.
Since this is a thread I have created I must interject because I don't like any thread I create devolving. The debate between you, and Lcarus is an interesting one, however the problem you have with your argument is you keep trying to tie this into welfare, those 2 topics have nothing to do with each other, save your rants on welfare for a thread that they are actually relevant, a thread about welfare, this is not a thread about welfare. Unless you've got that the global ruling class is planning to use the carbon tax if they're successful in implementing that to fund welfare programs, that is not relevant to this thread. I do try to encourage people participating in all my threads to stick to the topic at hand.
Most of your other points are solid, the global warming theory has a lot of holes in it, and it needs to be addressed scientifically, I am not one who subscribes to that theory myself.
@lcarus,
Kiosk Kid is right there have been a lot of scientists who are opposed to the global warming theory who are not employees of any petroleum corporation who are have been systematically shut out of debates, and that has to make one wonder, if the scientists who are proponents of this theory are so confident in it, than they why do they shut their opponents out of debates ro...
Since this is a thread I have created I must interject because I don't like any thread I create devolving. The debate between you, and Lcarus is an interesting one, however the problem you have with your argument is you keep trying to tie this into welfare, those 2 topics have nothing to do with each other, save your rants on welfare for a thread that they are actually relevant, a thread about welfare, this is not a thread about welfare. Unless you've got that the global ruling class is planning to use the carbon tax if they're successful in implementing that to fund welfare programs, that is not relevant to this thread. I do try to encourage people participating in all my threads to stick to the topic at hand.
Most of your other points are solid, the global warming theory has a lot of holes in it, and it needs to be addressed scientifically, I am not one who subscribes to that theory myself.
@lcarus,
Kiosk Kid is right there have been a lot of scientists who are opposed to the global warming theory who are not employees of any petroleum corporation who are have been systematically shut out of debates, and that has to make one wonder, if the scientists who are proponents of this theory are so confident in it, than they why do they shut their opponents out of debates routinely, why won't the scientific journals publish their writings?
One of the problems with the global warming theory is the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, carbon is NOT a pollutant, it's part of the natural life cycle of this planet, there would be no life on this planet without it, in fact the levels of carbon dioxide on the planet right now are actually too low for plant life to live healthy, and all animal species are very dependent on plant life on this planet, we all should be concerned about the carbon dioxide levels being too low.
I encourage you to read Dr. Tim Ball from Canada who's a climatologist who says that Carbon Dioxide rises and falls with temperature, not the other way around, in other words according to Dr. Ball Carbon Dioxide does NOT affect temperature, temperature affects Carbon Dioxide Levels.
There are many places around the planet that are reporting unusually low temperatures, so that is not consistent with a warming trend.
If we are on a warming planet wide, that doesn't prove anything because Earth's climate cycle is always changing, that's why they have terms like Ice Age, and the terms for hot cycles, and warm cycles(I forget what those terms are) Earth has always gone through climate cycles based on geological factors, and on the Sun, and how much solar energy the Sun is putting out at a given point in time.
Further, it's got to make you wonder when these government, and corporate scientists say that if the temperature rises by 2 degrees celsius, that it will end all life on this planet, really? Seriously? What is that hypothesis based on? 2 degrees? Come On! 2 degrees is not even enough to come close to warming the Arctic, and An Arctic let alone cause uninhabitable heat at the equator, or places near the equator. Some of those claims they're making are at best exaggerated, and worst fear mongering.
What concerns me is as society is wasting time focusing on this global warming that has no scientific basis, there are REAL environmental issues that we're ignoring, that are going to cause us problems if they're not addressed very soon, such as:
1. Monsanto and their frankenstein seeds that are threatening indigenous plant species on the ares where they're being planted! And if we loose indigenous plant species because of Monsanto, do you realize the devastating on the food supply, and on personal freedom that will have for all people of the planet?!! They will have total control of the global food supply, and the ecology of this planet will be trashed!
2. Carbon MONOXIDE! The gas that comes from vehicles, which is a very toxic gas, and is causing a lot of public health problems.
3. The hundreds of thousands of chemicals being produces and put into the air by factories that did not exist a very short time ago, that are contributing significantly to public health problems.
And I'l stop here because I could keep going with a very long list. The point I'm making here is, there are REAL environmental issues that we're ignoring that demand addressing very soon because the government, and corporate, and academic institutions scientists are distracting our attention by having us overly worried about the weather!
A scientific mind questions everything.