Seas acidifying as fast as 55 mya

[Big Orange]

Here's something that is guaranteed to give you sleepless nights:

Pollution Creating Acid Oceans
The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 65 million years, threatening marine life and food supplies across the globe, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of Bristol looked at how levels of acid in the ocean have changed over history.

They found that as ocean acidification accelerated it caused mass extinctions at the bottom of the food chain that could threaten whole ecosystems in the future.

The rapid acidification today is being caused by the massive amount of carbon dioxide being pumped out by cars and factories every year, which is absorbed by the water. Since the industrial revolution acidity in the seas have increased by 30 per cent.

The last time such a fast change occurred is thought to be 65 million years ago, when some natural event caused ocean acidification and the dinosaurs died out.

The study looked at sediments from around 55 million years ago, when temperature rose by up to 6C and acidification was occurring at a similar rate as today.

It found widespread extinction of tiny organisms that live on the bottom of the ocean. Ocean acidification can dissolve the carbonate shells of marine organisms and cause muscle wastage and dwarfism

Andy Ridgwell, lead author of the paper published in Nature Geoscience, said it could mean problems for humans in the future.

"Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions. A rapid and severe geochemical change in their environment would make their survival precarious.

"The widespread extinction of these ocean floor organisms during the Paleocene-Eocene greenhouse warming and acidification event tells us that similar extinctions in the future are possible," he said.

Dr Ridgwell said acidification is actually occurring much faster today than in the examples they looked at from the past therefore "exceeding the rate plankton can adapt" and theatening the basis of much of marine life. This would mean fish and other creatures further up the food chain that human beings eat may be affected as soon as the end of this century.

"There is lots of concern about major disruption to ecosystems. Certainly coral reefs will be eroded, that has an impact on other species. We could see marine ecosystems affected this century," he said.

:: A separate study published in Geoscience found that the glaciers on Greenland are melting much faster than expected because of ocean currents bringing warm water into the area. If the warming continues it could cause sea levels to rise by 3ft, three times as much as previous estimates, by 2100.

Telegraph.co.uk

Retitled thread after moderating screwup - apologies.

[Erik von Nein]

Oh, yes. Ocean acidification. At least now it's getting more play than it used to, but it's still a fairly unknown problem. Easily as important as global climate change for the effects it will (and is already) have on our food and oxygen production, let alone job loss.

This video (YouTube link), entitled Acid Test, is a good primer, along with the above article, on what's going on.

If nothing else acidification is harder to argue against than global climate change. The effects are more obvious and the answer self-evident.

Species that produce calcium carbonate shells are dissolving and with them the ability of the oceans to absorb more CO2, which is only going to make oceans increase in acidity more. Yup, the primary producers of the ocean are boned.

That's why I got so pissed at China and especially India during the Copenhagen conference. Sure, I didn't expect much from them, but to have India's president flat-out state that they won't do dick to decrease carbon pollution was incredible. Pure insanity.

[Winston Blake]

I think the title is incorrect. The important thing here seems to be that the rate of acidification is high enough to exceed the adaptation ability of these little sea creatures. The absolute level of acidity is not the same thing as the speed at which it's increasing. Maybe I'm just being a pedantic ass, but perhaps a better title would be 'Sea acidification as rapid as 65 million years ago'?

[Erik von Nein]

No, that's basically correct. Interestingly enough a few researchers have found some zooxanthellae (symbiotic in corals that can stand higher ocean acidity and might be able to withstand the changes fairly well. So precedent exists for adaptive responses to these changes, but they won't come soon enough (or at all) for most species.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sure the Republicans will say it's just a natural process since it's happened before (notwithstanding the fact that the last time happened to be a global mass-extinction event which wiped out the dominant species on the planet), so it's nothing to worry about.

[Singular Intellect]

Given the sheer inertia of human ignorance, stupidity, selfishness and short sightedness, it's gotten to the point where I'm really becoming indifferent to such revelations about threats to life on the planet. Given the historical fact that the collective asses of humanity don't move unless absolutely forced to, it seems quite obvious where this trend is going to lead us.

Factually speaking, the absolutely vast majority of all species on the planet became extinct at one time or another. It seems to me we're just nudging our own a little closer than it otherwise would occur.

Nothing would delight me more than to be proven wrong and overly pessimistic. However, I see no reason to expect the minority of relatively intelligent and educated humans to overcome the drowning out effect of the majority who aren't.

[Voyager989]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... -critters/

In a bit of unexpected climate related good news—not for us, of course—some shell-building ocean dwellers like blue crabs, shrimp, and lobsters may actually benefit from increased ocean acidification. This surprising finding seems to be good news for lobster lovers, but researchers note that the ongoing acidification still appears to spell trouble for many marine creatures.

*Snip*

Previously, scientists thought that all marine invertebrates would disappear as the oceans became more acidic. However, many of these creatures were alive during the Cretaceous period about 100 million years ago when CO2 levels were 10 times pre-Industrial levels. To see if they would all wither away in acidic oceans, Ries and colleagues exposed 18 species of marine organisms to seawater with four levels of acidity. The first environment matched today’s atmospheric CO2 levels, and two others were set at double and triple the pre-Industrial CO2 levels, mimicking conditions predicted to occur over the next century. The fourth CO2 level was 10 times pre-Industrial levels [ScienceNOW Daily News]. The results are a mixed bag for the organisms tested.

Blue crabs, shrimp, and lobsters, became juiced on the increased CO2, the researchers report in the journal Geology. However the news is not all good because American oysters, scallops, temperate corals, and tube worms developed thinner shells at the highest CO2 levels. The exoskeletons of clams and pencil urchins practically dissolved at the highest CO2 levels.

For clams and pencil urchins, the findings are troubling, since their shells and spikes are more than just pretty accessories—they serve as armor against their predators. In fact, the researchers found that creatures whose shells grew the most, such as crabs, tend to prey on those whose shells weakened the most, such as clams [NatGeo News Watch]. However for the super-sized animals, getting bigger may come with a cost, since extra energy spent building thicker shells “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building,” [USA Today] said study coauthor Anne Cohen.

Says author Ries: “The take-home message is that the responses to ocean acidification are going to be a lot more nuanced and complex than we thought” [ScienceNOW Daily News].

Well, this is better than I thought it'd be. Jellyfish and algae are not exactly most people's favorite seafood.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... -critters/

In a bit of unexpected climate related good news—not for us, of course—some shell-building ocean dwellers like blue crabs, shrimp, and lobsters may actually benefit from increased ocean acidification. This surprising finding seems to be good news for lobster lovers, but researchers note that the ongoing acidification still appears to spell trouble for many marine creatures.

*Snip*

Previously, scientists thought that all marine invertebrates would disappear as the oceans became more acidic. However, many of these creatures were alive during the Cretaceous period about 100 million years ago when CO2 levels were 10 times pre-Industrial levels. To see if they would all wither away in acidic oceans, Ries and colleagues exposed 18 species of marine organisms to seawater with four levels of acidity. The first environment matched today’s atmospheric CO2 levels, and two others were set at double and triple the pre-Industrial CO2 levels, mimicking conditions predicted to occur over the next century. The fourth CO2 level was 10 times pre-Industrial levels [ScienceNOW Daily News]. The results are a mixed bag for the organisms tested.

Blue crabs, shrimp, and lobsters, became juiced on the increased CO2, the researchers report in the journal Geology. However the news is not all good because American oysters, scallops, temperate corals, and tube worms developed thinner shells at the highest CO2 levels. The exoskeletons of clams and pencil urchins practically dissolved at the highest CO2 levels.

For clams and pencil urchins, the findings are troubling, since their shells and spikes are more than just pretty accessories—they serve as armor against their predators. In fact, the researchers found that creatures whose shells grew the most, such as crabs, tend to prey on those whose shells weakened the most, such as clams [NatGeo News Watch]. However for the super-sized animals, getting bigger may come with a cost, since extra energy spent building thicker shells “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building,” [USA Today] said study coauthor Anne Cohen.

Says author Ries: “The take-home message is that the responses to ocean acidification are going to be a lot more nuanced and complex than we thought” [ScienceNOW Daily News].

Well, this is better than I thought it'd be. Jellyfish and algae are not exactly most people's favorite seafood.

Algae is sensitive to pH. Phytoplanktons will largely be fucked. A few of the more resilient ones will survive... but biomass will drop.

[Erik von Nein]

Yes, everything is sensitive to pH changes. Sure, like the post said and what I mentioned before is there are some species who'll survive pH changes moderately well, but if this isn't halted it will result in a very significant portion of the species in the oceans going extinct, promptly followed by everything that relies on them.

One of the areas that really hits close is that deep-sea organisms seem also rather vulnerable to changing acidity and temperature. Vent organisms will probably be okay, considering the extreme conditions they already survive, but not so for everything else.

Interestingly enough this kind of flows into a recent discussion I've seen regarding the origin of shallow-sea life, and how deep-sea organisms have repeatedly recolonized shallow-sea and land areas, being a nifty repository for continuing genetic diversity. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out with that context in mind.

[open_sketchbook]

I've... actually gone beyond caring about the environment. Sure I recycle, take my bike and public transit everywhere and power down things I'm not using and whatnot, but I've come to see doing anything green as a useless symbolic gesture in the face of a dying world. I think that at this point, the biosphere is going to fail entirely within the next twenty to a hundred years and result in the extinction of pretty much every form of life bigger than an insect, with the obvious exception of ourselves, at least for a little while after that, due to our technology. I also think it is too late to do anything about it; even if we stopped using all technology cold turkey and massacred 99,9 percent of our population, I think we've already gone over the balance point and it's really just a question of when.

[Surlethe]

I think that at this point, the biosphere is going to fail entirely within the next twenty to a hundred years and result in the extinction of pretty much every form of life bigger than an insect, with the obvious exception of ourselves, at least for a little while after that, due to our technology. I also think it is too late to do anything about it; even if we stopped using all technology cold turkey and massacred 99,9 percent of our population, I think we've already gone over the balance point and it's really just a question of when.

What do you base this opinion on? Scientific modeling? Your perception of global warming?

[open_sketchbook]

Cynicism, mostly, and constant exposure to these sorts of articles. Besides, think about this, what the fuck can we even do to reverse acidification? What can we actually do to stop global warming? (And I mean, stop, not delay) There are too many people drawing too many resources and we were too busy building cars, shitting on the environment and tearing holes in our ozone layer when we could have done something about it.

[Formless]

The problem I have with your opinion, OS, is that apathy helped get us into this mess in the first place. I don't care if you think its inevitable anyway, doing nothing out of hopelessness is a self fulfilling prophesy. There are things we can do to minimize the damage, but only if we can rouse the public to action.

[open_sketchbook]

I just don't think it matters anymore what we are. Apathy was a problem back when we could have done something about it. Now, it's all irrelivant; "minimizing" the damage just means extending the death throes of our planet out another decade.

[Singular Intellect]

I've... actually gone beyond caring about the environment. Sure I recycle, take my bike and public transit everywhere and power down things I'm not using and whatnot, but I've come to see doing anything green as a useless symbolic gesture in the face of a dying world.

This is a typical evaluation based on human arrogance and self importance; the planet has been through far worse than we've ever thrown at it, and it's gotten by just fine. We may be fucked, and we may drag quite a few species with us in the process, but let's not pretend we're some force the planet can't recover from. Practically all species on the planet throughout history have gone extinct, and as much as some people might like to think it, we're not the ones that killed them all.

Based on crater formation rates determined from the Earth's closest celestial partner, the Moon, astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of five kilometers or more. The smallest of these impactors would release the equivalent of ten million megatons of TNT and leave a crater 95 kilometers across. For comparison, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 50 megatons.

I won't even bother citing other planetary phenomenon (like massive volcanic eruptions, world wide extinction events, etc) demostrating that humans are a small player when it comes to devestating planet wide effects.

I think that at this point, the biosphere is going to fail entirely within the next twenty to a hundred years and result in the extinction of pretty much every form of life bigger than an insect, with the obvious exception of ourselves, at least for a little while after that, due to our technology. I also think it is too late to do anything about it; even if we stopped using all technology cold turkey and massacred 99,9 percent of our population, I think we've already gone over the balance point and it's really just a question of when.

And you base this ridiculous idea on what evidence?

[open_sketchbook]

The above acidification of the oceans, global climate change caused by our carbon bootprint smashing down onto the world, the constant, unending stream of toxins we pour into the oceans and atmosphere, our huge (and ever-increasing) population, constant deforestation and destruction of habitats, noise pollution, heat pollution, light pollution, antimatter and fusion experiments, holes in the ozone layer, breeding multiple species into oblivion, our propensity for introducing pest species, the fact we are always one crazy person in political power away from a global nuclear war, and Glenn Beck.

While the planet and life will survive, future species will count the pidgeon, the rat and the cockroach as their ancestors cause I can't see much else surviving.

[Formless]

I just don't think it matters anymore what we are. Apathy was a problem back when we could have done something about it. Now, it's all irrelivant; "minimizing" the damage just means extending the death throes of our planet out another decade.

This isn't cynicism. This is pessimism. What makes you think the planet is going to die? If we keep going the way we are indefinitely, maybe, but if we change what we are doing now the planet may have a chance to recover, and we may even live to see it do so.

But not if we give up before we've even had a chance to redeem ourselves.

[Liberty]

I've... actually gone beyond caring about the environment. Sure I recycle, take my bike and public transit everywhere and power down things I'm not using and whatnot, but I've come to see doing anything green as a useless symbolic gesture in the face of a dying world. I think that at this point, the biosphere is going to fail entirely within the next twenty to a hundred years and result in the extinction of pretty much every form of life bigger than an insect, with the obvious exception of ourselves, at least for a little while after that, due to our technology. I also think it is too late to do anything about it; even if we stopped using all technology cold turkey and massacred 99,9 percent of our population, I think we've already gone over the balance point and it's really just a question of when.

I think you underestimate the power of evolution and species ability to adapt.

[Surlethe]

Cynicism, mostly, and constant exposure to these sorts of articles. Besides, think about this, what the fuck can we even do to reverse acidification? What can we actually do to stop global warming? (And I mean, stop, not delay) There are too many people drawing too many resources and we were too busy building cars, shitting on the environment and tearing holes in our ozone layer when we could have done something about it.

In other words, you haven't even studied the issue in depth. Your "knowledge" comes from pop-science articles and a healthy dose of cynicism. Do you have any reason to believe your projections are correct?

[scottlowther]

I'm sure the Republicans will say it's just a natural process since it's happened before (notwithstanding the fact that the last time happened to be a global mass-extinction event which wiped out the dominant species on the planet), so it's nothing to worry about.

Or they'll say something like "if we'd built a boatload of nuclear reactors back when we should've, we wouldn't have this problem," and they'd glare knowingly at Greenpeace as the hippies stare off into the distance and whistle nonchalantly as the policies they've helped drive turn the world into a cesspit.

[scottlowther]

Besides, think about this, what the fuck can we even do to reverse acidification? What can we actually do to stop global warming? (And I mean, stop, not delay)

It would actually be pretty easy. The albedo of Earth is darkest over the deep oceans, which conveniently take up the bluck of the tropics. If you want to *stop* global warming, do a few things (preferably all of 'em):
1) Change the albedo of the ocean. An easy way to do this would be floating light-colored (preferably white) mats of some kind. A few thousand square kilometers of essentially black ocean turned white would do wonders for the planets energy balance.
2) Support development and *deployment* of a large number of latest-gen nuclear powerplants.
3) Support development and *deployment* of thermal depolymerization plants, to turn garbage, sewage, biomass, etc. directly into crude oil
4) Support economic policies that lead to economic growth. In general, the richer a people are, the cleaner their tech is,a nd the fewer kids they have.


If you think Step 1 is ridiculously difficult, just consider what a yard of some stiffened floating white fabric might cost... in industrial quantities, perhaps a few cents. If you assume $.25 per square meter, then one square kilometer would cost $250,000. One thousand square kilometers would then cost $250 million. One *million* square kilometers would cost $250 billion dollars.... vastly less than the economic impact of Kyoto and similar "climate change" pacts. One million square kilometers would reflect back to space something on the order of 700 terawatts of sunlight at local noon, time-averaged, something like 175 terawatts. That's a *lot* of cooling potential. "Drive the world deep into an iceage" sort of cooling.

The covering would be simple enough to manufacture that it could be easily outsourced to the third world. The first world would simply pay for it... $250 billion over, say, ten years, would be something like three and a half bucks per person per year. If, as seems likely, it gets torn to shreds every few years, it'd still be a drop in the bucket compared to other strategies.

As for ocean acidification... a bit more research might be needed, but make the white covering out of something that's not only biodegradable, but which will:
A) Support plankton/algae/whatever
B) Directly reduce ocean acidification


Note: the oceans are *dark.*

[Alyrium Denryle]

I've... actually gone beyond caring about the environment. Sure I recycle, take my bike and public transit everywhere and power down things I'm not using and whatnot, but I've come to see doing anything green as a useless symbolic gesture in the face of a dying world. I think that at this point, the biosphere is going to fail entirely within the next twenty to a hundred years and result in the extinction of pretty much every form of life bigger than an insect, with the obvious exception of ourselves, at least for a little while after that, due to our technology.

Ok. No. Yes, we are in the middle of a mass extinction, but it is not the fucking Permian extinction you sodding moron. There are a lot of species that are going the way of the dodo. However most of them (my precious amphibians included) are habitat specialists that cannot withstand perterbations in their environment. Most frogs for example are going extinct due to one of three things.

Climate change facilitated chytrid fungus
Invasive frogs
Habitat destruction

Some frogs such as Pseudacris regilla, and Lithobates catesbeianus are resistant to chytrid fungus (IE. they get infected but are not symptomatic).

Others are endangered by frogs that are habitat generalists, capable of invading and outcompeting native frogs after human introductions.

Then there is plain old habitat destruction. But many (such as most toads) are actually facilitated by human habitat alteration.

A lot of species are habitat generalists that can survive anything we throw at them, and even like it. homophiles like crows and raccoons are good examples. Same with softshelled turtles.

I also think it is too late to do anything about it; even if we stopped using all technology cold turkey and massacred 99,9 percent of our population, I think we've already gone over the balance point and it's really just a question of when.

Most if the problems come from habitat destruction for water and agriculture. If we are gone, those are no longer issues.

Cynicism, mostly, and constant exposure to these sorts of articles. Besides, think about this, what the fuck can we even do to reverse acidification? What can we actually do to stop global warming? (And I mean, stop, not delay) There are too many people drawing too many resources and we were too busy building cars, shitting on the environment and tearing holes in our ozone layer when we could have done something about it.

We need to bring our carbon emissions below the global sinks. IE. below 5 gigatons per year from 7 gigatons per year. That is what we can do. Acidification will fix itself through biogeochemical processes after that. The carbon issue can be solved through a few means. Carbon sequestration, moves toward renewable and nuclear power generation. We have the technology available to stop global warming if we act fast enough. We just need to line the execs of certain industries up against a wall and see how few bullets we need in order to kill them all.

4) Support economic policies that lead to economic growth. In general, the richer a people are, the cleaner their tech is,a nd the fewer kids they have.

And the more energy they consume in their day to day lives, idiot.

Per capita carbon emissions in the US are way the fuck above everyone elses. Our raw number may not be as high as china's but once china develops more, the more energy they will require per capita.

If you think Step 1 is ridiculously difficult, just consider what a yard of some stiffened floating white fabric might cost... in industrial quantities, perhaps a few cents. If you assume $.25 per square meter, then one square kilometer would cost $250,000. One thousand square kilometers would then cost $250 million. One *million* square kilometers would cost $250 billion dollars.... vastly less than the economic impact of Kyoto and similar "climate change" pacts. One million square kilometers would reflect back to space something on the order of 700 terawatts of sunlight at local noon, time-averaged, something like 175 terawatts. That's a *lot* of cooling potential. "Drive the world deep into an iceage" sort of cooling.

And it would also decrease the carbon sinks. The energy that would normally go into plankton for photosynthesis and thus carbon sequestration would drop. Massively. Moreover, have you done the math necessary to show that this would cause the effect you claim?

A) Support plankton/algae/whatever

Not going to happen. Block sunlight, you kill algae. Filamentous algae does not tend to grow in warm climates like that. It is mostly planktonic.

B) Directly reduce ocean acidification

And you will do this how exactly?

Or they'll say something like "if we'd built a boatload of nuclear reactors back when we should've, we wouldn't have this problem," and they'd glare knowingly at Greenpeace as the hippies stare off into the distance and whistle nonchalantly as the policies they've helped drive turn the world into a cesspit.

Nuclear reactors are still fuel limited. They would delay the problem as long as we stay well supplied by uranium. But they are not a magic bullet. Even then, they will not reduce all of those emissions. They can generate electricity, but the problem is not just electricity generation.

[scottlowther]

4) Support economic policies that lead to economic growth. In general, the richer a people are, the cleaner their tech is,a nd the fewer kids they have.

And the more energy they consume in their day to day lives, idiot.

Way to debate rationally.

Per capita carbon emissions in the US are way the fuck above everyone elses.

That's because we don't have near enough nuclear plants. There is nothing about "energy" that screams "carbon footprint."

And it would also decrease the carbon sinks. The energy that would normally go into plankton for photosynthesis and thus carbon sequestration would drop.

If the "shades" are plant-fiber based, we'd be taking carbon out of the air and dumping it into the oceans. Plankton would survive just fine, as these shades would not truly darken the oceans, just small patches of them. Having a single unbroken patch of ocean a thousand kilometers on a side efficiently shaded would be a problem. Having a million square kilometers of ocean covered by strips a hundred miles long by a meter or two wide, separated by meters or more, would not present these problems.

Moreover, have you done the math necessary to show that this would cause the effect you claim?

Yes.

Nuclear reactors are still fuel limited. They would delay the problem as long as we stay well supplied by uranium.

We have a few tens of thousands of years worth of fissile materials in the oceans themselves. A few years back Japanese reseachers demonstrated a catalyst-coated net that simply "strained" a few kilos of uranium and other heavy metals out of seawater.

But they are not a magic bullet. Even then, they will not reduce all of those emissions. They can generate electricity, but the problem is not just electricity generation.

With sufficient electricity, which nuclear can clearly provide, there need be no "emissions." Hook up nuclear power to TDP, you can turn garbage into petroleum, thus allowing "fossil fuel" vehicles to operate forever, while at the same time beign a closed carbon cycle loop.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's because we don't have near enough nuclear plants. There is nothing about "energy" that screams "carbon footprint."

It does with our current technology use.

We have a few tens of thousands of years worth of fissile materials in the oceans themselves. A few years back Japanese reseachers demonstrated a catalyst-coated net that simply "strained" a few kilos of uranium and other heavy metals out of seawater.

Was it cost-effective and easily scalable? As it stands cost-effective uranium reserves are enough to power existing nuclear plants for a few decades.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclo ... serves.htm

With sufficient electricity, which nuclear can clearly provide, there need be no "emissions." Hook up nuclear power to TDP, you can turn garbage into petroleum, thus allowing "fossil fuel" vehicles to operate forever, while at the same time beign a closed carbon cycle loop.

No, because the emissions will still be sent into the atmosphere. The loop is not closed. All you do is take cabon we sequester from the atmosphere (read: all of the carbon used in any of our manufactured goods is ultimately derived from CO2 sequestered by plants from the atmosphere)
and send it back into the atmosphere.

You dont reduce emissions from that at all. You reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by sequestering it long term, and then not re-releasing it.

If the "shades" are plant-fiber based, we'd be taking carbon out of the air and dumping it into the oceans. Plankton would survive just fine, as these shades would not truly darken the oceans, just small patches of them. Having a single unbroken patch of ocean a thousand kilometers on a side efficiently shaded would be a problem. Having a million square kilometers of ocean covered by strips a hundred miles long by a meter or two wide, separated by meters or more, would not present these problems.

percent shading is in fact an environmental factor that structures algal communities. Having those massive strips will have the similar effect as the entire section of ocean being shaded, only more distributed. You still prevent energy from sunlight from hitting patches of ocean, thus decreasing the energy budgets of the local phytoplankton. Same amount of energy loss=same net loss of production. Basic thermodynamics you did fail.

[Formless]

You know, alternatively as a more stopgap measure we could apply the increased albedo stratagem to glaciers and the earth's poles. That would help keep them from melting, which has a significant impact on climate change as well. In fact, I think its already being done in places-- we just need to increase the scale of those efforts.