Global warming threatens Antarctic sea life

Feb 05, 2009

Climate change is about to cause a major upheaval in the shallow marine waters of Antarctica. Predatory crabs are poised to return to warming Antarctic waters and disrupt the primeval marine communities.

"Nowhere else than in these ecosystems do giant sea spiders and marine pillbugs share the ocean bottom with fish that have antifreeze proteins in their blood," says Rich Aronson, professor of biological sciences at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Fla. "The shell-cracking crabs, fish, sharks and rays that dominate bottom communities in temperate and tropical zones have been shut out of Antarctica for millions of years because it is simply too cold for them."

But this situation is about to change. "Populations of predatory king crabs are already living in deeper, slightly warmer water," says Aronson. "And increasing ship traffic is introducing exotic crab invaders. When ships dump their ballast water in the Antarctic seas, marine larvae from as far away as the Arctic are injected into the system."

Aronson and his colleagues published their results in the electronic journal PLoS ONE to coincide with the U.S. National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions on Feb. 5.

Fast-moving, shell-crushing predators, dominant in most places, cannot operate in the icy waters of Antarctica. The only fish there—the ones with the antifreeze proteins—eat small, shrimp-like crustaceans and other soft foods. The main bottom dwelling predators are slow-moving sea stars and giant, floppy ribbon worms.

To understand their history, Aronson and a team of paleontologists collected marine fossils at Seymour Island off the Antarctic Peninsula. Linda Ivany of Syracuse University reconstructed changes in the Antarctic climate from chemical signals preserved in ancient clamshells. As temperatures dropped about 41 million years ago and crabs and fish were frozen out, the slow-moving predators that remained could not keep up with their prey. Snails, once out of danger, gradually lost the spines and other shell armor they had evolved against crushing predators.

Antarctica's coastal waters are warming rapidly. Temperatures at the sea surface off the western Antarctic Peninsula went up 1°C in the last 50 years, making it one of the fastest-warming regions of the World Ocean.

If the crab invasion succeeds, it will devastate Antarctica's spectacular fauna and fundamentally alter its ecological relationships. "That would be a tragic loss for biodiversity in one of the last truly wild places on earth," says Aronson. "Unless we can get control of ship traffic and greenhouse-gas emissions, climate change will ruin marine communities in Antarctica and make the world a sadder, duller place."

Source: Florida Institute of Technology

Explore further: Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global warming brings crab threat to Antarctica

Sep 07, 2011

The sea floor around the West Antarctica peninsula could become invaded by a voracious king crab, which is on the march thanks to global warming, biologists reported on Wednesday.

Global study reveals new hotspots of fish biodiversity

Sep 25, 2013

Teeming with millions of species, tropical coral reefs have been long thought to be the areas of greatest biodiversity for fishes and other marine life—and thus most deserving of resources for conservation.

'Lost world' discovered around Antarctic vents

Jan 03, 2012

Communities of species previously unknown to science have been discovered on the seafloor near Antarctica, clustered in the hot, dark environment surrounding hydrothermal vents.

Human impacts on the marine ecosystems of Antarctica

Mar 31, 2011

A team of scientists in the United Kingdom and the United States has warned that the native fauna and unique ecology of the Southern Ocean, the vast body of water that surrounds the Antarctic continent, is ...

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

11 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

12 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

14 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vanderMerwe
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2009
This is another piece of poorly crafted AGW disinformation.

http://www.telegr...-up.html

Once you know that the infamous fraud, Michael Mann of the "hockey stick" scam is one of the authors, it all starts coming apart. The data was cooked. Weather station data was sewn together in a contrived manner and presto, the antarctic is suddenly warming. Get a grip Psyorg!
Egnite
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2009
What poor reporting Physorg! What can one say that hasn't already been said? Do you physorg reporters get ur jollies from reading GW arguments or something? Personally I am sick to death of those two words and couldn't care less if the planet is heating or cooling, either way life will go on.
OregonWind
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2009
Egnite - 'What poor reporting Physorg!'

vanderMerwe - 'Get a grip Psyorg!'

Give the Psyorg a break, this is exactly the same news published in many other places.
vanderMerwe
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2009
No breaks. Passing along bullshit simply isn't ok.
OregonWind
2.5 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2009
They are not in the position of judging the news just report it. They are not in the position of establishing the truth. They would act wrongfully if they did so I would never come back to this site if they did.
Velanarris
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2009
They are not in the position of judging the news just report it. They are not in the position of establishing the truth. They would act wrongfully if they did so I would never come back to this site if they did.
They should change their website info from "News from the ... fields" to "Opinions from the media about ... fields".

I think the above posters' objections are in regard to disinformation, which is actually harmful.
Big_Oil_Sockpuppet
3.1 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2009
This site sucks and is a conduit for AGW bullshit.
jackj
3.5 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2009
Global warming does not exist and if it does exist, is not caused by humans.
OregonWind
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2009
Velanarris

Psyorg is a science news place. If you guys are mad about GW then go to the Florida Institute of Technology and try to post your political/religious statements. How many of you are scientists or got a degree in science? Really??
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2009
Simple solution: Hunt and trap the King Crab near Antartica to extinction. Leave the rest alone. I see an opportunity for the expansion of industry there. :)

And we are not mad about GW. We are bothered about all the claptrap foisted upon the gullible and economic problems that will come about as a result of the "Chicken Little" approach to climate change. There has been a consistent downward trend in global temperatures for the last three years--in spite of rising levels of CO2!--and even environmentalists have touted Winter 2008 as "the coldest winter of the 21st century."
OregonWind
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2009
dachpyarvile:

Science is not about 'I believe or I don't believe' or "I don't like the idea because of my political preferences or because my religion said so' or even 'This cannot be true therefore it is not true' type of things. Skepticism is always useful but only when people keep their mind open not closed otherwise it is plain stupidity.

Now, about your statement: the atmosphere (and the ocean altogether) is complex enough to generate behavior like a very cold winter even when the entire globe is warming up in average. You may face a very hot summer next time, who knows? The whole system (including the ocean) behaves always unpredictably. A good theory about GW cannot be established with a simplistic model of the ecosystem. It takes a lot of effort to collect data and careful analysis of it and the entire process is far more difficult that the simple people can realize. As the data is pouring in to support the GW (if that is the case) you should be forced to accept the possibility unless you are blinded by political or religion sentiments alien to science.
dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2009
However, I am not impressed with the "quality" of the research, particularly when closer examination of the data shows that the numbers are being played with rather than taken as they are.

Such examples of the now discredited "hockey stick" graph and all data dependent thereon are case in point. The numbers have been tweaked so as to eliminate the MWP and RWP. It was hotter than globally than it now is. It was hotter at the end of the last Ice Age than it now is.

"Behavior like a cold winter"? Are you serious? Global temps have fallen over the last three years. Even a group of environmentalists were forced to admit that winter 2008 was "the coldest winter of the 21st century." Of course, now they are predicting that the temps are going to go up on a rapid upswing rather than growing colder.

The vapid pronouncements of the IPCC and related groups are exactly those of the same kinds of groups back in the 1970s, who were claiming that the planet was going to freeze in another Ice Age. The pronouncements are the same--only in reverse.

When I see some real evidence that mankind is responsible for warming up the planet to unbearable temperatures, I will accept it and not a moment before. The end of the last Ice Age and both the RWP MWP were warmer on the order of several degrees C than the current global averages. We have not even reached those temps and there were no massive CO2 emissions on the part of mankind in any of those time periods.
Velanarris
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 06, 2009
Velanarris

Psyorg is a science news place. If you guys are mad about GW then go to the Florida Institute of Technology and try to post your political/religious statements. How many of you are scientists or got a degree in science? Really??
How many GW supporters are scientists or have a degree in science? Honestly, the rebuttals from the AGCC crowd seem to never contain any science, just arguments from "authority".
Big_Oil_Sockpuppet
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2009
Global warming is a bigger hoax then the holocaust. No honest scientist thinks GW is real, just the money grubbing ones exploiting the gullible publics fears.
M_N
2.3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2009
Big_Oil_Sockpuppet, it's pretty obvious that you're an AGW believer. How about being honest about your position and actually contribute to the debate in a meaningful way?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2009
Big_Oil_Sockpuppet, it's pretty obvious that you're an AGW believer. How about being honest about your position and actually contribute to the debate in a meaningful way?

It's Noein recycled.
rajan
2 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2009
I think it's funny that all these mouth-breathers try to imitate scientists and say that global warming is not real. I am especially amused that not one of them answered OregonWind's question, "How many of you are scientists or got a degree in science? Really??"

The most hilarious part of this whole abortion of a debate is that none of you arm-chair scientists will ever have any influence in domestic energy policy, nor will anyone else who believes the half-assery that you promulgate.

physorg.com is just a conduit, be it for news you disagree with, or agree with.
dachpyarvile
3.2 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2009
I think it is funnier that AGW supporters like to use hyperbole in addressing our comments. No one of us (real deniers, not those like Big_Oil_Sock_Puppet who is faking it) is denying that the planet has warmed for a time; we are just denying that mankind has much to do with it because there is not yet any truly conclusive evidence that cannot be interpreted in different ways. In addition, we have noticed the downtrend in global temperatures as well as the downtrends in local temperatures over the last three years in spite of the rises of CO2 levels ppm.

We would not be deniers if the data had not been tampered with, a la "hockey stick" charts, before being presented to the public and were it not for the fact that so many gloom and doom predictions are being made based on flimsy and/or methodologically impaired science.

I would venture to say that several of us here hold various degrees in science. I spent a number of years actually working in the sciences where I worked until very recently (college system), if that makes you happy. :)
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2009
I think it's funny that all these mouth-breathers try to imitate scientists and say that global warming is not real. I am especially amused that not one of them answered OregonWind's question, "How many of you are scientists or got a degree in science? Really??"

1 graduate science degree
1 undergraduate science degree
2 associate science degrees
Velanarris
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2009
To answer your question Oregon:
1 associates in physics, 1 associates in mathematics, 1 masters in Geopolitical science.

If anyone is qualified to talk about a political scam being driven by science, it's probably me.

The AGCC camp has based all of their "science" off of mathematical models and NOT real world observations.

There are quite a few climate scientists who release papers that are completely contrary to my political views and if their science is sound I can't say a word against it. Problem is the vast majority of the science being pushed through is not sound or is sound only under theoreticals.

Find me one AGCC article that doesn't say "We believe X will happen", or "the model shows x"

I want to see one that says, Here is the experiment, here are the observations, here are the established facts. Find me one paper about AGCC that follows the scientific method and you'll see me say "That is great research in the field of climatology. I may not like it but it's irrefutable."
OregonWind
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2009
Velanarris

Good qualifications you have, it seems.

Please, do not interpret me wrong. I am not saying that I believe or I don't believe in GW. I am waiting for more good evidences(I have told that before here). I just think that using any political preference to say "This is a hoax" is wrong. See, I am not an environmental scientist buy I hold two graduate level degrees in theoretical physics and I am skeptical by nature but I keep my mind open for any possible scientific possibility, that is what is expected from people with scientific training. Right?

Some people here make political/emotional/religious statements without any scientific reason, without a scientific attitude. What they should do is to go and support better studies and data analysis somehow and if they so emotionally disturbed by possible theory of GW caused by man and destruction of the ecosystem then go take that on the politicians and leave the science reporters alone.
OregonWind
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2009
Errata: '...I am skeptical by nature but I keep my mind open for any possible scientific FACT'

I apologize.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2009
Errata: '...I am skeptical by nature but I keep my mind open for any possible scientific FACT'

I apologize.

No apology necessary. Oregon, you and I have had quite a few conversations, particularly on the topics of conservation and pollution limitation and come to a rather sound agreement in views on several occasions.

My objections with the AGCC camp are in the rampant alarmism and base denial of fact that the theories have been based on. AGCC hasn't been able to accurately predict anything with modeling showing a deficiency in the models themselves. It's expected that no model of climate will be perfectly accurate and myself, as well as some of the other more outspoken commentors here have also stated, we don't expect them to be. What we do expect is integrity in the sciences. Unfortunately we've had our trust in AGCC findings completely broken at each and every turn. Michael Mann and James Hansen are very quick to state that any "dissenting" scientist is on the take and has received money from the fossil fuel industry. In many of these cases Mann and Hansen have been forced to recant, although not as publically as the rest of us would like to see, as their commentary was fictious.

Now it's on the books that Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Trust to further the AGW agenda. Theresa Heinz Kerry is the sole adjudicator of the fund, also married to John Kerry, a solid AGW politico and former candidate for President.

I guess oil money is bad but ketchup money is a-ok.
http://www.
heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6

Mann has received over 7 million in grants and funding from Greenpeace, PETA, the Sea Shepphard Society, and multiple other organizations with strong domestic eco-terrorism ties. Funny thing is Hansen and Mann also received over $500,000 from Shell, Exxon, and Mobil. They certainly won't come out and admit to it but if you want to see it in writing take a look at the PACs releases for the oil companies and the 527C releases for Greenpeace and PETA.

If you want to look at unbiased science you'd have to ask Mann and Hansen why they refuse to release the methodology behind their practices and research in addition to inquiring as to why they blatantly refuse to debate the topic against an informed peer.
Velanarris
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2009
And FYI, you can completely ignore jackj and Big_Oil.

They're both the same person, also one of the more volatile AGW proponents on the site. His aim is to make the real skeptics look foolish by interjecting nonsense into the discussion. His intent is made clear when you watch how he downranks people who are skeptical of AGW and continues to spout ridiculous things like "the holocaust never happened".

After all, with a name like Big_Oil_Sock_puppet you really don't need any sort of a guide to know he's being a sophist contrarian.
dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2009
Keeping an open mind is one thing. Standing by a hypothesis when the evidence is falsifiable is another. Science is not just about keeping an open mind to possibilities and then move from hypothesis to theory. It is also about trying to falsify an hypothesis with evidence and material facts.

So far, just about everything I have been seeing from the IPCC and the like is easily falsified by pertinent evidence deliberately left out of equations and presentations. In other cases, alternate explanations work quite well, especially when the material facts go toward the alternate explanations.

I am waiting for such groups to give us something irrefutable. Demonstrate to me that what they say about mankind altering the weather by CO2 emissions is correct and that there are no corresponding climate cycles that also tend toward what is potentially being observed, and give me sound methodology, and I will turn a listening ear.

To date, no one in the AGW alarmist camp has been able to do so. I say, worry about real pollution by which we are damaging the biosphere and until we have something sound besides models based upon incomplete and faulty information let's not worry ourselves about anything but the really serious stuff that needs our attention now.
Noein
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2009
His aim is to make the real skeptics look foolish by interjecting nonsense into the discussion.


It's laughable to call global warming denialists "real skeptics." That's actually a grave insult to skeptics. Global warming denialists deny reality not because of science, evidence, reason, or logic but because of some ulterior religious/political/economic agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Global warming denialism itself is nothing more than a flimsy religious belief. The denialists begin with a faith-based conclusion (humans have no effect on the environment) and then work backwards from there, cherry-picking bits and pieces of data that support their religious dogma, while ignoring the bulk of the evidence.

http://img.photob...thod.jpg
Velanarris
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2009
Noein, give us one prediction or statement from the AGW camp that is true and irrefutable relating to anthropogenic global warming.
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2009
*Deafening silence*
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2009
His aim is to make the real skeptics look foolish by interjecting nonsense into the discussion.


It's laughable to call global warming denialists "real skeptics." That's actually a grave insult to skeptics. Global warming denialists deny reality not because of science, evidence, reason, or logic but because of some ulterior religious/political/economic agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Global warming denialism itself is nothing more than a flimsy religious belief. The denialists begin with a faith-based conclusion (humans have no effect on the environment) and then work backwards from there, cherry-picking bits and pieces of data that support their religious dogma, while ignoring the bulk of the evidence.

http://img.photob...thod.jpg


Wow! Everything you have said describes the AGW/AGCC camp and their falsification of the data (a la "hockey stick" graphs and so forth) to faultless precision! :)

The scientific method attempts to falsify hypotheses. The method of the AGCC camp is to falsify the data to make it appear that the environment is doing one thing or another in the name of funding.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2009
Wow! Everything you have said describes the AGW/AGCC camp and their falsification of the data (a la "hockey stick" graphs and so forth) to faultless precision! :)
Well I didn't want to go there just yet. I'd rather give him the chance to attempt to prove me wrong.
Global warming denialists deny reality not because of science, evidence, reason, or logic but because of some ulterior religious/political/economic agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Noein,

The main figures behind the AGW hypothesis have been caught red handed falsifying data to support their claims. They've even turned on their own friends and mentors when those friends and mentors have publically spoken against the AGW hypothesis. The component members of the IPCC reviews have stepped forward and stated that the content of the organizations reports are dubious and misleading and that the terminology used within those reports is not of a scientific nature (maybe, could, relatively sure). Hansen and Mann stepped forward and attempted to ruin the careers of some of the world's most brilliant scientists and used the obscure laws related to congressional statements to avoid the repercussions of slander lawsuits.

Now let's talk about Hansen. You are aware that Hansen received over $700,000 from George Soros' fund for the Politicization of Science, correct? It's fairly old news and well evidenced by reading the charitable release statements for the Open Society Institute.
http://rightcount...or-hire/

These are the men you're following. They beat the drum that sends conscientious skeptics and open minded scientists into hiding as standing anywhere other than in-line with AGW means you're an enemy and must be run out of town. Even the UN won't take them seriously anymore, yet you seem entirely comfortable calling us relgious zealots employed by the church of big oil.

Originally I was going to follow this with a statement on how being open minded regardless of your views will result in a better discussion and understanding but I perused your photobucket account and, well I can see it won't mean much to you. So, best of luck finding that verifiable factoid about AGW for me.
MikeB
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2009
Plants and trees need CO2 to survive, and they prefer to have it in concentrations about three times current levels. It seems obvious that this need of plants makes them evil since CO2 is evil. I am with the IPCC. Plants must be cut back on their CO2 levels until they are barely able to survive.
Helping to destroy evil CO2,
Mike
MikeB
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2009
No Einstein,
It looks like your rank is much better as big_oil_sockpuppet. Your alterego is more popular than you are. Maybe you should reconsider your own world view. I have a feeling that you are really a wonderful person. Maybe your inner child just needs to come out and say, "Hello World!!!, I love you!!!"

Or not...

Just some musings by someone who cares,
Mike

PS I hope that helped.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2009
4 days, no evidence, not even a supportable hypothesis.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2009
4 days, no evidence, not even a supportable hypothesis.

5 days, where are you at Noein? You haven't been abducted by Big Oil have you? Did the Clean Coal Coalition pay you hush money?
Roach
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2009
noein, I was waiting on your irrefutable proof to join your ranks.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2009
10 days and nothing, yet, Noein?
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2009
10 days and nothing, yet, Noein?

Well he's already posted to other threads. This is just another sign that he's a religious zealot of the Church of Gorism.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2009
Yep. It would seem so.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2009
And, it is of interest that Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites on the face of the planet. See the following:

"Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns

Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit"

* * *

"...Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service."

* * *

http://www.worldn...ID=54528