Technology Review - Published By MIT
Technology Review  in English | en Español | auf Deutsch | in Italiano | 中文 | in India
Advertisement

New Clues to Global-Warming Dangers

Continued from page 1

By Emily Singer

Monday, March 05, 2007
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Although it's hard to predict exactly how that loss will affect the environment, it's likely to change the structure of the entire ecosystem. Without algae-eating urchins, "you might predict that algae will become dominant in a particular area, which then might affect availability of fish that live there, which could affect the fishing industry or even tourism," Hoffman says.

Hoffman is now collaborating with scientists in New Zealand and Mexico to study the impact of ocean warming and acidification in other areas. She hopes her work will spur more researchers to develop chips for other organisms, including those that are economically important, such as fish raised in fisheries. "I'd like to see the tools we're developing be used as widely as possible in as many ecosystems as possible," says Hoffman.

Some similar studies are under way. Coral, which protects coastal regions from storms and floods and provides habitats for thousands of marine species, may be particularly susceptible to warming oceans. When water temperatures climb, coral "bleaches," meaning that the algae that live in the coral and give it its color die off. Monica Medina, a geneticist at the University of California, Merced, is developing genetic tools to study both the coral and the algal symbionts that live within it. She wants to determine what genes are activated both when coral begins to bleach and when it begins to recover.

George Somero and his colleagues at Stanford University are working much farther south. They have developed a microarray for fish that they are now using to study a specific species living in the Antarctic. Previous studies have shown that the fish, which is a major food source for marine mammals, has lost its ability to activate heat-shock proteins, and therefore it may be particularly vulnerable to climate change. "Now we're using gene chips to see if they have lost other stress-response mechanisms," says Somero. "We want to know what happens when the environment collapses. That hasn't really been done before."

Tags

environment global warming ocean

Comments
  • Global Warming
    Those who endorse global warming universally seem to see it as a looming disaster for life on the planet.  If this is truely an "objective" opinion why are all the consequences negative?  If I was an objective scientist and analyzed the outcomes of a systemic change I would probably find and disclose both positive and negative outcomes.

    Could it be that there is an ideology driving and distorting the objectiveness?  What might that be? Could it be the old, old growth vs no growth factions looking for suport for their point of view on how people should behave?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    oconnmic
    03/05/2007
    Posts:21
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Global Warming
      I fully agree.
      The standard scientific practice on any specific issue is to state the findings without judgement.  Once these findings have been outlined, it is acceptable to offer a theory that ties them together, then cite potential pitfalls to the reasoning (much like citing sources of error in a lab experiment).
      Instead what we get so often from the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd is an emotion-evoking claim for a headline followed by specific citations of selected facts (supportable in some case, unsupported in others) that advance the claim, while also taking the opportunity to scorn opponents who may take issue with their statements.  This practice makes the agenda clear from the outset:  The AGW faction seeks to scare the public into action in such a way that they are willing to relinquish control to a leadership of zealots who do not have scientific authority to guide us toward a solution.  But in the case of climate change, it is not so much a solution that is needed, but a call to action to adapt to variability.  But beyond this, the global warming scare has the potential to derail the environmental movement altogether, by diverting efforts to clean the air and water toward an essentially invisible and fictitious enemy.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Boxorox
      03/05/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      • Re: Global Warming
        In my mind's eye I see mankind, 10,000 years from now, shivering in the ice age we caused by "fixing" global warming.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        oconnmic
        03/05/2007
        Posts:21
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: Global Warming
          Yes, of course. We should be burning MORE fossil fuels to avoid the coming ice age. Do we really need to pursue conservation, efficiency, and innovation in terms of energy consumption? Silly chicken littles.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          dbt
          03/05/2007
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          1/5
        • Re: Global Warming
          The fact that a scientific study and claim must be objective is completely true, but I do not agree that the reasons of this one sided study are just to direct an alternative human behavior. The reasons are obvious with out a study; a simple observation of an unnatural climate difference from only a decade ago should be enough proof that should make us realize the negative results of this change. And efforts to stabilize global warming will not result in an ice age, not even after 100,000 years. The objective is to be carbon dioxide neutral to our climate not take it to the other end of the temperature spectrum. And C02 emissions (commercial/industrial/automotive) are not a natural force; it’s a human design which did not plan for a positive ecosystem. Whether we like it or not, we play a major role to the in-direct destruction of our habitats which in return sustains human life. So if global warming citations are one sided, then I assume it is because this is the most important issue that threatens humanity and life on this planet (so we need the emphasis to act). I do not find a point in living a fast paced developed life style if this life style will only last a few centuries at the rate and method we are going at. Also if there is any "positive outcome" from global warming, please inform us.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          El Gazzar
          03/06/2007
          Posts:1
      • Re: Global Warming
        beautifully stated!!!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        bmn
        03/05/2007
        Posts:25
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: Global Warming
        I agree.  A lot of what the liberals say about “global warming” doesn’t make any sense.  It gets real cold in winter and the snow shines heat into space, but they won’t talk about that, will they?  And if keeping the ozone layer is so important for "global cooling" why is it that every day it’s hot we get ozone warnings?  They said it on TV, the hotter it is, the more ozone there is! It doesn’t make sense that carbon dioxide is going to kill the ozone layer and heat up the earth because heat makes ozone!

        For those who remain unconvinced, just read some of Michael Creighton's books about it.  He proves it all wrong - beyond a doubt and he doesn't even need to use "science".  It's all in your brain people.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Bill Hillary
        03/08/2007
        Posts:3
        Avg Rating:
        1/5
        • Re: Global Warming
          Well if they said it on TV then it must be true!  And if Michael Crichton wrote about it in a work of fiction then that's proof right there!
          <br />
          Fortunately, "I saw it on TV" and "Michael Crichton said so" do not qualify as credible counter-arguments to scientific evidence.  You start off by bashing liberals as if they invented global warming and then you end off by using the word "science" in quotes as if it's some hokey dogma.  To truth is that you have been manipulated  by corporate controlled pundits to believe that global warming is a political issue between liberals and conservatives.  It's not.  It's a moral issue between corporate profits and the survival of all life on earth.  I can tell you're a conservative because of your selfish view on this matter.  If it's not going to affect you in your lifetime, why should you care?  And that's the sad truth.
          <br />
          If you want to comment on the writer's particular use of fear to get you to read the article, then that's perfectly fair.  If you want to hear about the nice side of global warming, I don't think you're going to find it because there is no nice side.
          <br />
          But to actually address your issue that "liberals are conveniently ignoring the issue of reflection" then I first have to laugh.  You make it seem like that's the be-all end-all of the argument.  First of all, your assertion is weak.  How much of the world is covered in snow at any one time regardless of season?  Clouds easily reflect more sunlight than snow.  Due to the hydrologic cycle, the more heat we have, the more clouds there are which means more sunlight gets reflected.  This gives us a little buffer, but it is unknown how long that will last and to what extent when we actually break that mechanism.  It might end up that more clouds end up with less plant life and less oxygen.  Who knows?  The only certainty is that things are changing and only getting worse.  So why not adapt by practicing sustainable living?  You might actually like it.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          stradric
          03/16/2007
          Posts:30
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
    • Re: Global Warming
      The article title includes the word "dangers" so what they discuss is absolutely appropriate.  Also, this is not just pure objective science here - the underlying issues include the likelihood that the species doing the objective study, may also be the cause of the problem.  The observer may well be affecting the outcome.  So it is appropriate to have the science become less "objective", since there is an integral "subjective" part.  Finally, this is an article intended for a wide community, it is not a pure science article.  As the suspect species that is likely causing the change, I think it is ok to call these potential changes "dangerous" and advertise them, as an attempt to affect change that might avert the losses. 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      faegre
      03/05/2007
      Posts:1
    • Re: Global Warming
      interesting perspective - I hadn't really thought of it as a neo-Luddite assault, but that is distinctly possible. it is clear that there is no broad perspective being applied -- the warming trend and any impact to the ecosystem should be viewed in terms of change as the only constant. IF there is a man-imposed effect in the process, we need to identify it, and take action to mitigate it, or acknowledge that it is a positive process and allow it to occur, should that be the case. you have really hit upon an important point. the assumption that all change is bad simply flies in the face of both common sense and everything that science has ever taught us.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bmn
      03/05/2007
      Posts:25
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Global Warming
      While I'm not entirely uncritical of global warming theory, this particular argument does not really work. As with any major, unplanned event, the likelihood of good and bad effects is *not* equal. Just as a random gene mutation is nowhere near as likely to be beneficial as negative, it's a lot easier for things to go badly for us than it is for something to "turn out" to be positive.

      This is why serendipity is rare, but "bad luck" is the law of the land.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Monsterboy
      03/05/2007
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: Global Warming
      Oconnmic,

      A number of scientific have indeed discussed the benefits of global warming, if you really want to call them that.  For the most salient discussions, see the IPCC reports.  Here's the problem, though.  Although human-caused global warming will have some short-term benefits in some regions, the deleterious effects of global warming will soon obliterate any of the so-called benefits.

      But at any rate, you claim that global warming must be an ideology because no scientific research documents global warming benefits is simply wrong.

      LuneKeltkar
      Rate this comment: 12345

      LuneKeltkar
      04/30/2007
      Posts:1
  • We are all going to die.
    How can we be so short sighted? Have the urchins, krill, and orca never seen a warmer ocean, ever, in their hundreds of millions of years in our oceans? (Well, only a few million years for the orca.) They survived before. I bet they do it again. In addition, given that only about 1 in 1000 species that have lived on earth still live on earth, is it really worth getting worked up that a few more might pass into the historical record? The biodiversity now is several orders of magnitude greater than it has been in essentially all of earth’s history. Can it really matter in the long run? Of course, as Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead, even as a species. It is the only certainty of life. It all dies.

    Oceanic life is sensitive, but adaptable. Foraminifera are an excellent example.

    http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/foram/foram.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

    For reference, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
    Above a chart showing the average global temperature for the last 2,000 Ma, he states, "During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs."

    During the last 600 Ma, CO2 concentration has been as much as 18 times higher (1800%). This reference is enlightening: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
    And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lschuber
    03/05/2007
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: We are all going to die.
      Once again Clint Eastwood says it all.

      In the movie "The Unforgiven" when the kid tries to justify his cold blooded killing of a man by saying he had it coming, Eastwood's character says, "We all have it coming, kid"
      Rate this comment: 12345

      oconnmic
      03/05/2007
      Posts:21
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • We are all going to die.
      Looking at the temperature anomaly I notice the dramatic hot air increase over the past 300 years corresponds well with the increase in lawyers and politicians.  Shouldn't we take corrective action?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RD
      03/05/2007
      Posts:114
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: We are all going to die.
      So I'm supposed to take comfort that "natural variability over 2 billion years produced a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs" and CO2 concentration "has been as much as 18 times higher (1800%)."

      I now feel comforted and enlightened. Whew, thank you. Let's go burn fossil fuel to see if we can produce a tripling of C02 compared to 18th century levels over the next 40 years, then raise dinosaurs for our burgers.

      China, start up your coal generating plants! To think, I was once worried. Hey, the warming curve is "natural" Too bad about the coral reefs: they'll adjust, somehow.

      Juraissic Park, here we come!!!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      jarrettr
      03/05/2007
      Posts:1
    • Re: We are all going to die.
      Over the past million years the world has had 10 cycles of ice ages and warming. The world has been warming for the past 40,000 years (with little ice ages and abnormal periods in between). The Co2 levels have also fluctuated.
      None of this resulted in catastrophes.
      Things changed, plants and animals died off, but others came along.
      The cataclysmic scenario does seem exaggerated.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      jazambra
      03/06/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: We are all going to die.
        How many times must this idiotic statement be repeated before its finally put to rest? Sigh. While the earth's climate has fluctuated over the past several million years, it has been remarkably CONSISTENT over the past 10,000 years which not so coincidentally is the period of human civilization. All the nutbags on this list who go on about how fluctuations are no big deal haven't the foggiest clue what they're talking about. Like the human body, the smallest fluctuation in the earth's average temperature can have drastic conseuences for our agriculture, diseases, flora, and fauna. Its quite childish to say fluctuations are no big deal, just deal with it, simply because you don't want to get your fat ass out of your SUV and make minor changes to your lifestyle.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        snedunuri
        03/12/2007
        Posts:30
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • the scare tactics are getting OLD
    any article that leads with the emotional statement "it's time to get worried" is NOT approaching the issue from the standpoint of science. the warming trend MAY be significant, MAY be a problem, and MAY have a human-caused component. none of those possiblities is proven, and it is irresponsible to sell this emotional blackmail pop-politics as science. the editor should be ASHAMED.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bmn
    03/05/2007
    Posts:25
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • getting OLD
    Did he just convieniently forget evolution??
    You know the ability to change over time to survive??
    We are not talking next week.Things will be differant but they will continue on.Weather we are talking Florida being the new Alaska or whatever we will adapt the wild will adapt.Nothing stays the same ever.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    McMillan968
    03/05/2007
    Posts:38
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: getting OLD
      Do you really think humans will have the ability to adapt to relatively rapid changes in the environment? 23000 people died in France from heat. Cherynoble resulted in 1000s of deaths. Humans don't adapt very well. Americans are extremely fat. Fat people don't adapt well to high heat. Is it ok to sacrifice the lives of thousands perhaps millions of people because we don't want to change the way we live, we don't want to adapt to a changing environment? We are requiring subordinate species to adapt to the garbage and the present and future changes we are responsible for. Yet, we the dominant species can't even modify our own behavior to prevent human induced environmental tragedy.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gdingle
      03/08/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • READ THIS
    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
    Rate this comment: 12345

    snedunuri
    03/12/2007
    Posts:30
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
Reply

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos
Latest Videos
The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush

Top Stories Of The Day

Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement

RSS Feeds

xml icon TR Top Stories
xml icon TR Editors' Blog
xml icon TR Video Blog
xml icon TR Video
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.