Sentences with phrase «acidification comes»

Acidification comes from CO2 dissolution, which is largely the result of human activity.

Ocean acidification comes from GHGs, but not eutrophication which is driven primarily by chemical and soil runoff which comes from ignorance of natural systems design and the dysfunctional food system.

Not exact matches

«Furthermore, model projections suggest that over the coming decades that South Georgia will experience increased stress from ocean - wide acidification.»

That's decidedly good news, but it comes with a catch: Rising levels of CO2 in the ocean promote acidification, which breaks down the calcium carbonate shells of some marine organisms.

«You don't know where the samples came from,» he says, adding that even soil scientists with little knowledge of China could have predicted acidification simply by looking at the high amounts of fertilizer applied there.

Most also recognize that such global agreements are the most difficult to come by, and that local protection strategies and efforts to reduce stressors on corals and marine life are important steps in at least staving off the impacts of ocean acidification and global warming.

And just as for sea butterflies, the carbonate shortage that comes with ocean acidification means trouble for coral reefs.

The development of the technology and the importance of monitoring ocean acidification are likely to support the development of further satellite sensors in the coming years.

In addition to rising water temperatures and ocean acidification, other stressors can come into play.

It is one of the most extreme things they could come up with because they are not able to find the fingerprint of the carbon dioxide warming of the atmosphere so then they started to come up with this new scheme [ocean acidification].

I have a sort of mental chart with lots of arrows: actions that produce GHGs (e.g., coal - burning) causing a plethora of problems (& goods — like power), acid rain, ocean acidification, local ground, air, water pollution, GW, health problems & dangers for miners, military threats / expenses (according to Pentagon studies re oil), etc.; and also many arrows of good (some bad) coming out of measures to abate GW.

I know nothing about this issue, but I just came across a reference to Jacobson, Mark Z., «Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air - ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry.»

I don't know if it actually causes fish to disintegrate, but up until last year when the ocean acidification evidence came out, I would have agreed that CO2, which plants need, was not a pollutant in the same way SO2 & N0x (+ sulfuric & nitric acids) and other pollutants are.

This phenomenon, which is commonly called «ocean acidification,» could have profound impacts on some of the most fundamental biological and geochemical processes of the sea in coming decades.

Also predictable is that we can anticipate sea level rising by meters per century for centuries to come, and that the base of the ocean food chain will be drastically changed and probably reduced by ocean acidification.

Haha, I wondered how long it would be before someone came along quibbling about the term «acidification».

«After reviewing all of the facts put forward by various parties, I have come to the conclusion, that 199 Turbines on Yorke Peninsula, are going to have absolutely no effect whatsoever in abating climate change or ocean acidification.»

«For example, there was a call coming out on slow - onset events, which, in the UNFCCC language, means sea - level rise, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, desertification.

What L&D neglect to mention is that Caldeira has actually come out against geoengineering using SO2 at this time for reasons entirely unrelated to global temperatures — it only treats one of the symptoms (rising global temperatures), does nothing for ocean acidification and other carbon dioxide (CO2) related problems, and is therefore too risky.

More distressing news about the decline of life in the oceans came in with another report, which shows that ocean acidification (fueled by ACD) is expected to cause skeletal deformities in half of global juvenile corals, making them increasingly susceptible to dying off.

But when it comes to «the other carbon problem,» ocean acidification, the discussion remains stuck between steps 1 and 2.

Climate change and ocean acidification are both largely caused by the release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, much of which comes from the burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.

From the «global warming and ocean acidification will kill everything, forever» and the «nature always finds a way» department comes this inconvenient truth.

Ocean uptake of CO2 slows the rate of anthropogenic climate change but comes at the cost of ocean acidification.

And with no sign of CO2 emissions slowing down, ocean acidification will likely keep increasing in the decades to come.

The acidification has already been measured, and if the increasing CO2 trend continues it would come to pose a serious extinction threat to major classes of marine organisms, including corals.

This question came up on an NRC panel on ocean acidification that I was involved with — do the extinctions during the PETM tell us anything about how much the changing pH in the ocean would affect, say, fisheries?

This ocean acidification hypothesis, as it has come to be known, has gained great momentum in recent years, because it offers a second independent reason to regulate fossil fuel emissions in addition to that provided by concerns over traditional global warming.

Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly, and some researchers predict that fresh meltwater will inhibit nutrient transport and limit biological activity, allowing the surface ocean to come into equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 and promoting acidification.