Monday, March 11, 2013

The Coastal Ocean


Science News

... from universities, journals, and other research organizations

Glaciers Will Melt Faster Than Ever and Loss Could Be Irreversible Warn Scientists

Mar. 7, 2013 — Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers will melt faster than ever in the next few centuries. Research by European funded scientists has shown that 20 per cent of the Canadian Arctic glaciers may have disappeared by the end of this century which would amount to an additional sea level rise of 3.5 cm.
The results of the research, part of the EU funded ice2sea programme, will be published in Geophysical Research Letters this week, and the paper is now available online.
The researchers developed a climate model for the island group of the north of Canada in which they simulated the shrinking and growing of glaciers in this area.
The researchers show that the model correctly "predicted" the ice mass loss measured over the last ten years and then used the same model to project the effect of future climate change on Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers.
The most important result of the research is it shows the probable irreversibility of the melting process, according to lead author Dr Jan Lenaerts of Utrecht University who says, "Even if we assume that global warming is not happening quite so fast, it is still highly likely that the ice is going to melt at an alarming rate. The chances of it growing back are very slim."
One of the main reasons for the irreversibility lies in the fact that snow melting on tundra, and sea ice loss from around the glaciers, actually reinforce regional warming, with significant consequences on the glaciers of Northern Canada. Snow and sea ice reflect the sunlight, and when the snow and sea ice have disappeared, a large part of the sunlight will be absorbed by the land and the sea, which will significantly increase the local temperature.
In one scenario 20 per cent of volume of the glaciers disappears by the end of this century. In this scenario the average global temperature increases by 3 degrees Centigrade but the rise in temperature around Canadian ice caps is 8 degrees Centigrade. Dr Lenaerts emphasises this is not an extreme scenario.
Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers represent the third largest ice body in the world after Greenland and the Antarctic. Should the Canadian ice caps melt completely, the global average sea level will rise by 20 centimetres. Since the year 2000 the temperature in this area has risen by 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade and the ice volume has already significantly decreased. If a fifth of the Canadian ice caps have melted by the end of this century, this leads to an additional sea rise of 3.5cm.
Co-author Professor Michiel van den Broeke of Utrecht University says , "Most attention goes out to Greenland and Antarctica which is understandable because they are the two largest ice bodies in the world. However, with this research we want to show that the Canadian ice caps should be included in the calculations."
Professor David Vaughan programme leader of ice2sea, who is based at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, says, "The Canadian archipelago is an area where climate is changing rapidly, and the glaciers here contain enough ice that we should not ignore their contribution to sea-level rise. Added to glaciers in Alaska, the Russian Arctic and Patagonia, these apparently small contributions add up to significant sea-level rise. A key success of this study was in showing that the model performed well in reproducing recently observed changes. That success gives us confidence in how the model predicts future changes."
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided byBritish Antarctic Survey, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
  1. Jan T. M. Lenaerts, Jan H. van Angelen, Michiel R. van den Broeke, Alex S. Gardner, Bert Wouters, Erik van Meijgaard.Irreversible mass loss of Canadian Arctic Archipelago Glaciers. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; DOI:10.1002/grl.50214
 APA

 MLA
British Antarctic Survey (2013, March 7). Glaciers will melt faster than ever and loss could be irreversible warn scientists.ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2013/03/130307145453.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
Posted by at

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Mussels



Check out this "60-Second Science" clip at Scientific American podcast  The podcast is about researches' findings regarding the relationship between mussel byssal strength and water temperature.
Posted by at

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Great Tohoku Earthquake - Tsunami Debris


I read this interesting short piece from AccuWeather.com just a few minutes ago.  We discussed earthquakes and tsunamis earlier this this year.  Well, one aspect of that terrible event in Japan is the millions of tons of debris pulled out into the Pacific Ocean.  In fact we highlighted this facet of tsunamis when we learned about ocean circulation.  Remember the image below? This is NOAA's prediction model of the debris' travels.

This issue of tsunami debris affects not only coastal communities, but also shoreline biota - flora and fauna. 


Tsunami Debris Litters Alaska Coast; Clean Up Funds Insufficient

Jillian Macmath
By Jillian Macmath, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
February 19, 2013; 7:15 AM
More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter
Photos courtesy of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
The beaches of Alaska are piled with debris from the tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011, but restoration to their once pristine condition has slowed, as funding remains scarce.
"The amount of debris washing ashore has vastly exceeded most people's expectation...," said Chris Pallister, Vice President of the Gulf of Alaska Keeper, a non-profit organization dedicated to cleaning marine debris from the coastline of Alaska.
"As soon as the tsunami hit and we saw the videos, we knew the northern Gulf of Alaska shoreline was going to get inundated with tsunami debris," he said. "We said so at an international marine debris conference in March 2011. Our assertion was largely dismissed."
But Pallister's assertion has proved accurate as debris continues to wash ashore in massive quantities.
The debris is no longer only lightweight items such as water bottles and styrofoam. Beaches are now also littered with refrigerators, fuel tanks and other large objects.
Local landfills are struggling to find space for such a large volume of debris.
"We are all scrambling to come up with a solution for this," he said.
Additionally, most of the sites in need of clean up are remote and therefore more difficult and costly to tend to.
According to the Alaska Marine Stewardship Foundation, each of the five Pacific Coast states received $50,000 from the federal government for tsunami debris clean up. Additionally, the Japanese government has gifted the United States $5 million which is being administered by NOAA to individual states.
The Gulf of Alaska Keeper received $49 thousand last September from NOAA and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to remove the debris in the Prince William Sound (PWS).
The Sound clean up demonstrated how bad the situation truly is, Pallister said.
Pallister cites the arrival of tsunami debris as the third major environmental catastrophe the PWS has suffered in the past 50 years.
In 1964, an earthquake devastated PWS communities and natural habitats. The quake generated a tsunami that leveled communities and spread oil, fuel and debris throughout the sound from community crushed fuel depots and structures.
Then, in 1989, an oil spill occurred. "PWS has taken a beating to say the least," Pallister said.
NOAA has received approximately 1,519 official debris reports from across the country as of February 7, according to Keeley Belva, Public Affairs Officer at NOAA.
Only 21 of those items have been confirmed to be tsunami debris. NOAA relies on specific markings, such as japanese text, in order to identify debris. Items without such indications are not classified.
Though the amount of confirmed debris remains low, the Gulf of Alaska Keeper maintains that roughly 75 percent of the shoreline in Alaska has been impacted by tsunami debris.

Posted by at

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Happy Darwin Day


An excellent post from ScientificAmerican.com.


Adventures in the good science of rock-breaking.
Rosetta Stones HomeAboutContact

Darwin: Geologist First and Last

By Dana Hunter | February 10, 2013 |  

(Happy Darwin Day! I figured today of all days would be a good one for reposting this from ETEV. It’s been slightly updated and modified from the original, in case you already knew Charles Darwin was a geologist (because you’ve read David Bressan’s post, right? Right??) and wish to spend your time playing spot-the-differences. Isn’t it nice to know the biologists don’t have dibs on one of the most famous scientists in history? Read up a bit, and then go have fun telling people at Darwin Day events that they really should’ve had a rock hammer on the celebratory cake as well.)

Shall we play a word-association game? I’ll say “Darwin.” And chances are, you’ll say “Origin of Species,” or “Evolution,” or “Biology.” Charles Darwin laid the foundation for modern biology. He changed our whole conception of how species come to be, why a single simple organism could be the root of a riotously-branching tree, how “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Of course we associate him with biology. Rightly so.
But I have got a different word associated with him now: “Geology.”
Darwin was one hell of a biologist. But he began and finished with geology, and geology is at the heart of The Origin.

Darwin's "Tree of Life" Sketch. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Darwin's "Tree of Life" Sketch. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
“It is not too much to say that,” Cambridge geology professor John W. Judd said in his introduction to Darwin’s Geological Observations on South America, “had Darwin not been a geologist, the Origin of Species could never have been written by him.” Strong words, you say. Of course a geologist would be partial, but perhaps he overstates the case. Except. Except. Some of the most powerful arguments in The Origin are centered in geology. He understood the geologic record, and what that meant for the fossil record. He understood how geology impacted species. There, in chapters IX and X, taking center stage, is geology. No geology, no Origin – not as we know it.
Or perhaps I should say, no Lyell, no Origin. Because it was Charles Lyell and hisPrinciples of Geology that had the greatest influence on Darwin’s scientific thought. Darwin’s writings are liberally salted with paens to Lyell. In his Autobiography, he shows just how much influence Lyell had on his thinking, influence that led directly to the powerfully-organized arguments of The Origin: “After my return to England it appeared to me that by following the example of Lyell in Geology, and by collecting all facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and plants under domestication and nature, some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole subject.”
Anyone who has read The Origin understands just how thorough Darwin was in collecting and marshaling his facts. One of the most critical facts was the immensity of the timescales involved. In Chapter IX, it becomes exquisitely clear that geology prepared Darwin’s mind for seeing those years in their uncountable millions. “It is hardly possible for me even to recall to the reader, who may not be a practical geologist, the facts leading the mind feebly to comprehend the lapse of time,” he wrote. “He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.” Without an understanding of the age of the Earth, an understanding of evolution is impossible. We take it for granted now. Then, it was still a new idea, and without it, Darwin may have never been able to conceive of evolution as the engine of all the diversity of life.
Geology is intimately related to evolution. That is a fact that gets obscured; you don’t hear of Darwin as geologist in biology classes. He never got so much as a mention in my geology class; when I come across him in books on geology, it’s usually in reference to his work on evolution by way of explaining how fossils can be used for dating rocks. A person could be forgiven for thinking he was a biologist first and last. But his first passion was geology. Field observations on the geology he saw while sailing with theBeagle filled half his manuscript pages. Geology formed the subject for some of his first books: it comprises major portions of his Voyage of the Beagle; it helped build the foundation for The Origin; and in 1881, he returned to geology one again with his “The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms” – a treatise on soils. He was a Fellow of the Geological Society of London. Geology was his first scientific love, and he returned to her again and again.
Without evolution, Darwin may not have achieved the same fame, but he wouldn’t have been forgotten. His contributions to geology were far from inconsequential. He laid some of the foundation stones for the young science. His work on coral reefs, his recognition that granitic rocks and lava rocks were essentially the same, his work on volcanic islands, and crustal movements in South America, would have ensured him a place among the giants of geology. Students may not have instantly recognized his name, and fundamentalist pastors may not have thundered against him, but he still would have been a recognized and respected scientist.
We’ll be exploring Darwin the Geologist in some depth in the future. And you can sail off on your own voyage of discovery – Sandra Herbert’s Charles Darwin, Geologistwill take you all over Darwin’s geologic world. By the end of the voyage, it’s my fondest hope that the next time we play the Darwin Word Association Game, you’ll shout “Geology!” without a second’s hesitation.
Darwin's Sketch of St. Helena Coastline, shamelessly pilfered from our own David Bressan.
Sources
Works by Charles Darwin:
Sir Archibald Giekie, Charles Darwin as geologist. The Rede lecture given at the Darwin centennial commemoration on 24 June 1909.
There’s music from Richard Einhorn’s oratorio The Origin over at ETEV, if you’d like some celebratory tunes. Gorgeous stuff!
Dana HunterAbout the Author: Dana Hunter is a science blogger, SF writer, and geology addict whose home away from SciAm is En Tequila Es Verdad. Follow her on Twitter: @dhunterauthor. Follow on Twitter @dhunterauthor.
More »

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Posted by at

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Surf's Up!!



Given our discussion of tsunamis lately, I thought this article from Geology.com to be timely.  The article treats the 1700-foot tsunami that occurred in Lituya Bay, Alaska, in 1958.  No, that should not be 170-ft.  1700-feet!!
Read on for more...

 Geology.com - Largest Wave Article
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)