For a period in the middle of the 20th century, global temperatures failed to climb even though there was a steady rise in CO2. Why? The culprit seems to have Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) from power plants that countered the warming effect by reflecting back sunlight before it could hit the ground. But before someone suggests saving the planet through increased SO2 emissions, it should be noted that SO2 is also the primary cause of acid rains that devastated forests and lakes until the Clean Air Act moderated that problem.
Funny thing, it turns out that the CO2 that's baking the planet also has another interesting effect.
... the legal wrangling has focused [on global warming], with lawsuits flying over states' ability to regulate automotive CO2 output and whether the EPA needs to treat it as a pollutant due to the climate impact. But a paper that will appear in Geophysical Research Letters suggests this legal wrangling may be besides the point: the impact of atmospheric CO2 on the oceans should exceed EPA standards within decades, and cuts in emissions need to be made immediately if we're to avoid harming key species.
CO2 mixes with water to form carbonic acid. This is a relatively mild acid that exists in every bottle of soda you've ever had. However, while you might find the fizz refreshing, most sea life doesn't appear compatible with life in a 2-zillion liter container of Sprite.
Even if you're a global warming skeptic, you can't deny that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily rising over the last century. That's a value that's easily, accurately, and repeatably measured. In the last decade, the pace of the increase has kicked it up several notches, and best estimates have us reaching 550ppm within the next forty years.
The consequences of that 500ppm level is where the new paper comes in. ... The net result is that even reaching 500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the ocean to exceed the acceptable pH change in EPA's Water Quality Criteria.
Even if the temperature held steady (which it won't), even if sea level didn't rise (which it will), even if climate wasn't changing around the planet (which it is), this change in ocean chemistry alone will be enough to disrupt key species in the ocean that hold up the ecosystem of the planet.
In the meantime, the US is opting out of the only global discussion to curb CO2 emissions. That's global leadership of a kind only lemmings could admire.
So what should you do about this?
If the paper's arguments reach the broader public, they also may shift the debate over carbon emissions in general. Many people have a hard time grasping century-scale temperature change and melting ice caps; water pollution and crashing fisheries are things that many people and governments have more immediate experience with.
So get the word out there before Long John Silver's introduces popcorn shrimp with actual pop. Please.
(Thanks to ars technica for their coverage on this issue.)