Latest news with #FrancisDrake
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Science
- Yahoo
How the ‘evil twin' of the climate crisis is threatening our oceans
On a clear day at Plymouth marina you can see across the harbour out past Drake's Island – named after the city's most famous son, Francis Drake – to the Channel. It's quite often possible to see an abundance of marine vessels, from navy ships and passenger ferries to small fishing boats and yachts. What you might not spot from this distance is a large yellow buoy bobbing up and down in the water about six miles off the coast. This data buoy – L4 – is one of a number belonging to Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), a research centre in Devon dedicated to marine science. On a pleasantly calm May morning, Prof James Fishwick, PML's head of marine technology and autonomy, is on top of the buoy checking it for weather and other damage. 'This particular buoy is one of the most sophisticated in the world,' he says as he climbs the ladder to the top. 'It's decked out with instruments and sensors able to measure everything from temperature, to salinity, dissolved oxygen, light and acidity levels.' It's the hourly recordings of this last measurement, the pH of the water, that are adding to a picture locally and globally that is increasingly concerning scientists. The results show that ocean acidification is rising – and it is doing so at an alarming rate. Ocean acidification, often called the 'evil twin' of the climate crisis, is caused when carbon dioxide is rapidly absorbed into the ocean, where it then reacts with water molecules leading to a fall in the pH of the seawater. A paper out on Monday from scientists at PML, the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and Cimers (Oregon State University), shows ocean acidification is happening more rapidly than previously thought. Part of the problem for scientists in bringing it to the world's attention is that you can't see the pH levels in the sea at the beach near you, so how do you know it is happening? It's difficult to see the biological effects because they're going to take a long time to happen Prof Steve Widdicombe, PML 'It's tough because there is no real smoking gun,' says Prof Steve Widdicombe, director of science at PML and a leading global voice on ocean acidification. 'It's difficult to see the biological effects because they're going to take a long time to happen and differentiating the impacts of ocean acidification from things like temperature, fishing pressures and pollution makes it really hard to generate impetus and momentum in decision-makers and policymakers to really tackle it hard.' For anyone who wants an immediate idea of its impact, there is a very effective video from the Noaa that shows a pteropod swimming in water with a normal pH level, alongside one where the pteropod has been subject to elevated CO2 levels for two weeks. In the first video the marine creature has a clear shell and is actively swimming, in the second it shows a partially dissolved and fissured shell and the pterapod having difficulty moving in the water. Images such as this help scientists raise awareness of the issue, but on their own they will never be enough. This lack of visibility and understanding of the impacts of acidification has led scientists to focus on building a body of work that clearly shows the statistical correlations between increasing levels of acidity in the oceans and the changes in biological processes to flora and fauna in the sea in different areas around the world. A good example can be seen in the north-west of the US. In about 2010, the oyster farming industry there – worth millions of dollars – nearly collapsed after oyster production seemed to drop off a cliff. Prof Helen Findlay from PML explains the science of what was going on: 'On the west coast you get an upwelling of deep waters, and that deep water has naturally got more CO2 in it. But on top of that, you have the acidification effect from the atmosphere, and that amplified the upwelling effect. It turned out, after some investigation, that the intake pipes connected to the hatcheries were bringing in this acidified water, which had been amplified over the years.' The level of acidity in the water had reached a point that meant the oysters were trapped in their larval state and unable to grow the shells they needed to develop. The hatcheries then installed sensors to measure the pH of the water and added chemicals to hatchery tanks to neutralise the water when necessary. Scientists hope that education about initiatives such as in the oyster hatcheries of the north-west US, combined with government funding, will help encourage other countries to take action suited to their particular acidification problem. But large parts of the world do not have access to the information they need to begin planning what to do. There are obligations for countries to tackle ocean acidification enshrined in international agreements including, most recently, the Global Biodiversity Framework, that aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, while decision-makers either lack the resources to tackle the issue, or simply twiddle their thumbs over implementing a plan, commercial operators are stepping in to offer alternative solutions. Geoengineering the ocean is becoming big business. Companies are focusing on different human-made ways to remove carbon from the seas, with perhaps the most developed of these being ocean alkalinity enhancement. This is where an alkaline solution is added to seawater to raise the pH level. Done at a controlled, very local level, such as in the tanks in the oyster hatcheries, this can be effective. But many scientists are concerned that the ocean geoengineering industry is growing far too rapidly. At the end of the day, CO2 is going up, pH is going down, and that's an urgent issue people are not talking about Jessie Turner, Ocean Acidification Alliance 'We shouldn't proceed further along this road without the evidence,' says Widdicombe. 'Can you imagine going to your doctor and they say 'I've got a drug here that will fix you.' If the doctor then says we haven't really tested it and we're not sure about the side effects, would you still be happy to take it?' Jessie Turner, executive director of the Ocean Acidification Alliance, worries that geoengineering may also cause people to lose sight of the obvious. 'While exploring a research agenda around geoengineering interventions is important, the number one manmade solution to ocean acidification is reducing our CO2 emissions,' she says. 'I hope that we're not losing the urgency for that. Without governments paying more attention to ocean acidification, there is this opportunity for the private sector to steer the course.' Related: Carbon released by bottom trawling 'too big to ignore', says study Aside from the primary objective of reducing CO2, there are other things that can be done to tackle ocean acidification, including limiting organic pollution in the water, often relatively easy to do at a local level, and creating more resilient marine habitats around our shores. It is clear, however, that scientists working in this field are getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of urgency around it. Many are hoping that this week's UN ocean conference in France will provide a vital opportunity to discuss the problem with heads of state and get it more firmly on government agendas. 'At the end of the day, we know CO2 is going up, pH is going down, and that's an urgent issue that people are not talking about,' says Turner. 'It's an overlooked consequence of carbon in our ocean that governments can no longer afford to overlook in mainstream policy agendas, and the time to address it is running out.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Science
- The Guardian
The scientists warning the world about ocean acidification – ‘evil twin' of the climate crisis
On a clear day at Plymouth marina you can see across the harbour out past Drake's Island – named after the city's most famous son, Francis Drake – to the Channel. It's quite often possible to see an abundance of marine vessels, from navy ships and passenger ferries to small fishing boats and yachts. What you might not spot from this distance is a large yellow buoy bobbing up and down in the water about six miles off the coast. This data buoy – L4 – is one of a number belonging to Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), a research centre in Devon dedicated to marine science. On a pleasantly calm May morning, Prof James Fishwick, PML's head of marine technology and autonomy, is on top of the buoy checking it for weather and other damage. 'This particular buoy is one of the most sophisticated in the world,' he says as he climbs the ladder to the top. 'It's decked out with instruments and sensors able to measure everything from temperature, to salinity, dissolved oxygen, light and acidity levels.' It's the hourly recordings of this last measurement, the pH of the water, that are adding to a picture locally and globally that is increasingly concerning scientists. The results show that ocean acidification is rising – and it is doing so at an alarming rate. Ocean acidification, often called the 'evil twin' of the climate crisis, is caused when carbon dioxide is rapidly absorbed into the ocean, where it then reacts with water molecules leading to a fall in the pH of the seawater. A paper out on Monday from scientists at PML, the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and Cimers (Oregon State University), shows ocean acidification is happening more rapidly than previously thought. Part of the problem for scientists in bringing it to the world's attention is that you can't see the pH levels in the sea at the beach near you, so how do you know it is happening? 'It's tough because there is no real smoking gun,' says Prof Steve Widdicombe, director of science at PML and a leading global voice on ocean acidification. 'It's difficult to see the biological effects because they're going to take a long time to happen and differentiating the impacts of ocean acidification from things like temperature, fishing pressures and pollution makes it really hard to generate impetus and momentum in decision-makers and policymakers to really tackle it hard.' For anyone who wants an immediate idea of its impact, there is a very effective video from the Noaa that shows a pteropod swimming in water with a normal pH level, alongside one where the pteropod has been subject to elevated CO2 levels for two weeks. In the first video the marine creature has a clear shell and is actively swimming, in the second it shows a partially dissolved and fissured shell and the pterapod having difficulty moving in the water. Images such as this help scientists raise awareness of the issue, but on their own they will never be enough. This lack of visibility and understanding of the impacts of acidification has led scientists to focus on building a body of work that clearly shows the statistical correlations between increasing levels of acidity in the oceans and the changes in biological processes to flora and fauna in the sea in different areas around the world. A good example can be seen in the north-west of the US. In about 2010, the oyster farming industry there – worth millions of dollars – nearly collapsed after oyster production seemed to drop off a cliff. Prof Helen Findlay from PML explains the science of what was going on: 'On the west coast you get an upwelling of deep waters, and that deep water has naturally got more CO2 in it. But on top of that, you have the acidification effect from the atmosphere, and that amplified the upwelling effect. It turned out, after some investigation, that the intake pipes connected to the hatcheries were bringing in this acidified water, which had been amplified over the years.' The level of acidity in the water had reached a point that meant the oysters were trapped in their larval state and unable to grow the shells they needed to develop. The hatcheries then installed sensors to measure the pH of the water and added chemicals to hatchery tanks to neutralise the water when necessary. Scientists hope that education about initiatives such as in the oyster hatcheries of the north-west US, combined with government funding, will help encourage other countries to take action suited to their particular acidification problem. But large parts of the world do not have access to the information they need to begin planning what to do. There are obligations for countries to tackle ocean acidification enshrined in international agreements including, most recently, the Global Biodiversity Framework, that aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, while decision-makers either lack the resources to tackle the issue, or simply twiddle their thumbs over implementing a plan, commercial operators are stepping in to offer alternative solutions. Geoengineering the ocean is becoming big business. Companies are focusing on different human-made ways to remove carbon from the seas, with perhaps the most developed of these being ocean alkalinity enhancement. This is where an alkaline solution is added to seawater to raise the pH level. Done at a controlled, very local level, such as in the tanks in the oyster hatcheries, this can be effective. But many scientists are concerned that the ocean geoengineering industry is growing far too rapidly. 'We shouldn't proceed further along this road without the evidence,' says Widdicombe. 'Can you imagine going to your doctor and they say 'I've got a drug here that will fix you.' If the doctor then says we haven't really tested it and we're not sure about the side effects, would you still be happy to take it?' Jessie Turner, executive director of the Ocean Acidification Alliance, worries that geoengineering may also cause people to lose sight of the obvious. 'While exploring a research agenda around geoengineering interventions is important, the number one manmade solution to ocean acidification is reducing our CO2 emissions,' she says. 'I hope that we're not losing the urgency for that. Without governments paying more attention to ocean acidification, there is this opportunity for the private sector to steer the course.' Aside from the primary objective of reducing CO2, there are other things that can be done to tackle ocean acidification, including limiting organic pollution in the water, often relatively easy to do at a local level, and creating more resilient marine habitats around our shores. It is clear, however, that scientists working in this field are getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of urgency around it. Many are hoping that this week's UN ocean conference in France will provide a vital opportunity to discuss the problem with heads of state and get it more firmly on government agendas. 'At the end of the day, we know CO2 is going up, pH is going down, and that's an urgent issue that people are not talking about,' says Turner. 'It's an overlooked consequence of carbon in our ocean that governments can no longer afford to overlook in mainstream policy agendas, and the time to address it is running out.'
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Science
- Time of India
The overlooked miracle of life
By- Jug Suraiya All of us, even those who profess atheism, at one point or another have hoped for a miracle, an act of Divine Providence that could make our most heartfelt wishes magically come true. I wish i could be a topper in the board exams; I wish I could land a job in an MNC; I wish I could find my ideal life partner; I wish I would win a jackpot lottery. Our miracle list is almost as endless and as varied as we. But as we hope, and even pray, for a miracle, we overlook the greatest miracle of all, which is ourselves, the fact that we exist at all. If you're fortunate enough to live in a place where there is little or no atmospheric and light pollution, and you look up at the night sky you'll see some 2,000 stars, each of which is like our Sun. This is only a minuscule part of our galaxy, the Milky Way, which has an estimated 60 billion stars and is one of anywhere between 200 billion and three trillion galaxies in the universe, each with billions of Suns, which in turn have their own orbiting planets. In order to sustain life even at the most basic level, a planet must be in what is called the Goldilocks Zone, neither too hot nor too cold. Moreover, habitable planets must have water, from which primordial life springs. Scientists – using the Drake Equation named after astronomer Francis Drake, who in 1960 initiated the first organised search for extraterrestrial radio signals – have estimated there could be as many as 60 billion habitable planets in our galaxy alone, and in the universe as a whole as many as 50 sextillion. That's five followed by 22 zeros, or one million billion. However, the calculus of the Drake Equation falls foul of the Fermi Paradox, named after the Italian-American physicist hailed as 'the architect of the nuclear age', Enrico Fermi. Seeing a magazine cartoon depicting extraterrestrials rummaging through New York City's garbage bins, Fermi reportedly said, 'Where is everybody?' Why is it that SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, launched in 1960, hasn't made contact with a single intelligent life form from elsewhere in the universe? Could it be that such beings deliberately avoid us, seeing the mess we've made of our own planet through environmental degradation and wars? Or is it that we are truly alone in the unimaginable vastness of the cosmos? Marvelling at the complexity of life on Earth, from bacterial, single cell microorganisms to scientists, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle compared it to the statistical probability that a storm sweeping through a junkyard would create a fully functional Boeing 747. Who, or what, is the cause of this miraculous phenomenon that we take for granted and call life? Religion would have us believe it is God. Science would nudge us toward the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian evolution. The greatest wonder of wonders, the greatest miracle of miracles is that there is something at all – the universe, earthworms, us – rather than nothing, existence rather than non-existence. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The real reason Britain is doomed to lose the next world war
Sir Keir Starmer must be terrified of having to lead Britain into World War Three. Not least because our young men could so easily dodge conscription. All they'd have to do is tell a judge that being sent overseas would breach their right to family life in the UK. After all, that excuse always seems to work for foreign criminals. So why not for innocent British men? There is, however, an even greater problem facing the Prime Minister. Because I strongly suspect that he's starting to grasp the real reason why Britain is doomed to lose the next war. It's not just our inadequate spending on defence, or our complacent reliance on the USA to protect us. We've got a crisis that's more fundamental, which is that we simply won't want to fight. For decades now, young people have been taught to be ashamed of this country. They've been taught that Britain's history is one of almost uninterrupted, and unparalleled, cruelty and exploitation and that the figures once hailed as national heroes, from Francis Drake to Churchill, were really villains. In short: they've been taught that the British are the baddies. And so, having had it drilled into them practically from birth that their country is nothing to be proud of, why on earth would they want to risk their lives defending it? As it happens, we already know they don't want to. Remember that extraordinary poll of Gen Z from last month, showing the near-total collapse in patriotic feeling among Britain's young? In 2004, a similar poll found that 80 per cent of young people felt 'proud to be British'. Today, a mere two decades later, it's just 41 per cent. Is it any surprise, therefore, that only 11 per cent said they'd be willing to fight for Britain? And that more than 40 per cent said they would absolutely never fight for Britain, in any circumstances at all? Of course it's not. Previous generations were taught very differently. And yes, to our superior 21st-century eyes, perhaps that teaching was a little 'jingoistic'. But jingoism can actually have a useful purpose. By telling children that their nation's history was glorious and brimming with heroes, you give them a reason to cherish it, and perhaps even to become heroes themselves one day, in their nation's hour of need. When our forefathers were sent to fight in the trenches of the Western Front, not all of them might have known exactly why the Great War was being fought. But they at least had a clear idea of what they were trying to defend. Would today's young men be able to say the same? I'm not sure they would. The grim truth is that we no longer have a strong and unifying national identity – the sort of identity that pulls a country through a war, and gives it the courage to fight on. Our schools may teach something they call 'British values', but these 'values' are always hopelessly vague – as, of course, they have to be. In our atomised, multicultural society teachers daren't suggest that any 'values' aren't British. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to feel 'excluded'. As a result of this loss of identity, we are simply not a united people any more. In fact, many of us share little more than a language – and often, not even that. On Tuesday it was reported that almost one million people in England can't speak English fluently – and more than 130,000 can't speak English at all. Meanwhile, I'm sure no one has forgotten that, in 2014, it was claimed that more than twice as many British Muslims had joined Isis than the British Armed Forces. The Prime Minister is right that we need to spend more money on arms. The question is: who will we find to fire them? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The real reason Britain is doomed to lose the next world war
Sir Keir Starmer must be terrified of having to lead Britain into World War Three. Not least because our young men could so easily dodge conscription. All they'd have to do is tell a judge that being sent overseas would breach their right to family life in the UK. After all, that excuse always seems to work for foreign criminals. So why not for innocent British men? There is, however, an even greater problem facing the Prime Minister. Because I strongly suspect that he's starting to grasp the real reason why Britain is doomed to lose the next war. It's not just our inadequate spending on defence, or our complacent reliance on the USA to protect us. We've got a crisis that's more fundamental, which is that we simply won't want to fight. For decades now, young people have been taught to be ashamed of this country. They've been taught that Britain's history is one of almost uninterrupted, and unparalleled, cruelty and exploitation and that the figures once hailed as national heroes, from Francis Drake to Churchill, were really villains. In short: they've been taught that the British are the baddies. And so, having had it drilled into them practically from birth that their country is nothing to be proud of, why on earth would they want to risk their lives defending it? As it happens, we already know they don't want to. Remember that extraordinary poll of Gen Z from last month, showing the near-total collapse in patriotic feeling among Britain's young? In 2004, a similar poll found that 80 per cent of young people felt 'proud to be British'. Today, a mere two decades later, it's just 41 per cent. Is it any surprise, therefore, that only 11 per cent said they'd be willing to fight for Britain? And that more than 40 per cent said they would absolutely never fight for Britain, in any circumstances at all? Of course it's not. Previous generations were taught very differently. And yes, to our superior 21st-century eyes, perhaps that teaching was a little 'jingoistic'. But jingoism can actually have a useful purpose. By telling children that their nation's history was glorious and brimming with heroes, you give them a reason to cherish it, and perhaps even to become heroes themselves one day, in their nation's hour of need. When our forefathers were sent to fight in the trenches of the Western Front, not all of them might have known exactly why the Great War was being fought. But they at least had a clear idea of what they were trying to defend. Would today's young men be able to say the same? I'm not sure they would. The grim truth is that we no longer have a strong and unifying national identity – the sort of identity that pulls a country through a war, and gives it the courage to fight on. Our schools may teach something they call 'British values', but these 'values' are always hopelessly vague – as, of course, they have to be. In our atomised, multicultural society teachers daren't suggest that any 'values' aren't British. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to feel 'excluded'. As a result of this loss of identity, we are simply not a united people any more. In fact, many of us share little more than a language – and often, not even that. On Tuesday it was reported that almost one million people in England can't speak English fluently – and more than 130,000 can't speak English at all. Meanwhile, I'm sure no one has forgotten that, in 2014, it was claimed that more than twice as many British Muslims had joined Isis than the British Armed Forces.
