Antarctic Icebergs Creating New Ecosystems
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 06.23.07
Scientists have discovered that the recent surge in the number of Antarctic icebergs, prompted by rising temperatures, has resulted in the creation of vast new ecosystems of plankton, seabirds and krill. They believe they could play a key role in absorbing the excess carbon dioxide emissions driving global warming.
By using photosynthesis, the species in these ecosystems are able to take carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into carbohydrates and, thus, new life. "I think it can be a substantial contribution" to reducing carbon dioxide levels, Kenneth Smith Jr. of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, the project's leader, said. "These things have been ignored forever."
The icebergs form when glaciers moving across Antarctica are broken up through the accumulation of dust and nutrient-rich dirt. This nutrient-rich dirt provides a key source of nutrients to support the proliferation of plankton and algae. Krill feed on the plankton and seabirds, such as Cape petrels and Antarctic fulmars, in turn feed on the krill.
Based on data they obtained from satellite imagery, they counted 962 ice islands in an area of approximately 4,000 square miles near their study area which led them to conclude that close to 39% of the region could contain these floating iceberg communities.
While promising, these results don't necessarily indicate that icebergs play an essential role in regulating global carbon dynamics. "While icebergs may be important on a local scale, I seriously doubt that their impact needs to be accounted for in global carbon budgets," said Kevin R. Arrigo, a geophysicist at Stanford University not involved in the study.
Via ::Proliferating icebergs creating ecosystems (newspaper)
See also: ::Aliens of the Deep, ::Antarctic Warming to Reduce Animals at Base of Ecosystem, Shift Penguin Populations, ::Break-up Of Antarctic Ice May Expose Marine Life To More Sunlight, Alter Food Chain, ::Breaking: Possible Environmental Disaster in Antarctica
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Does this mean global warming might actually solve itself? Holy crap, the Republicans were right.
albert:
global warming was never really a recipe for total global destruction. Rather, it's more like a recipe for total civilization devastation as water levels rise, flooding coastal cities. Humans (and other terrestial life) may suffer immensely.
However, aquatic life may in fact benefit, as increased sunlight may lead to more energy from photosynthesis, and the erosion of nutrient rich land may also expand growth. The melting of an iceberg may cause the release of sequestered nutrients, expanding local aquatic populations there, but it's only as transient as the melting itself.
My interepretation is pretty simplistic, and a systems wide analysis would be needed to fully understand the effects of global warming on all terrestial life, but safe to say global warming won't "solve itself."
It is an interesting short term effect, but those floating icebergs do not last very long before they have melted, most likely taking their communities with them.
The increase in ocean temperature created as the sun's heat is absorbed by the darker ocean (as opposed to the reflective icecaps,) will melt the iceberg islands far quicker than the carbon eating krell can reverse the huge imbalance of greenhouse gases. As the end of the article states, their overall effect is negligible and not worthy of being "accounted for in global carbon budgets."
Way to go, Earth!
Besides, if we keep polluting, the icebergs keep calving off and slowly melting. Less and less get made, as they are needed more and more, so that you get into a "Peak Iceberg" scenario ;) . But it is nice to know that there are some feedback loops that work in our favour, not just against (undoubtably they'll be many unexpected loops like this...some good, some bad). But we should obviously control our own inputs into this, and not depend on feedback loops we don't (necessarily or fully) understand and have a hard time predicting...
This news item does not mitigate AT ALL the disasterous potential human impact of global climate change. The problem of climate change will be most disasterous in less-developed areas, not the US, where we can adjust our infrastructure. (However, long-term drought and coastal destruction will still seriously endanger our economy.)
The human cost could be tremendous because less-developed countries cannot distribute disaster aid as quickly as we can, will have more trouble relocating refugees, and won't have money to adjust their infrastructure.
So this is an interesting story, but it doesn't refute for one minute the underlying science of global climate change or its consequences (nor can I see in the post anything that attempts to.)
An analogy - if you buy tickets on your credit card, and you get frequent flyer miles, those miles are valuable and have a benefit, but that benefit is completely erased unless you pay off the charge on the card immediately. Global warming is your card balance, and this transient mitigating effect is the flyer miles.
wow, your websites called treehugger AWSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! luv it!
This article points out a temporary positive in an ultimate global catastrophe of negatives. This does not do any good to humanity or the well being of our Earth. We cannot rely on the Earth to take care of itself when we are so badly abusing it. Anyway, there are many qualified sources that refute this articles claim. For example:
"Scientists say the icebergs appear to have caused a 40 percent reduction in the size of the 2000-2001 plankton bloom in one of Antarctica's most biologically productive areas. The icebergs decrease the amount of open water that the plants need for reproduction."
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020416iceberg.html