بخش 2 فصل 7

کتاب: زمین غیر قابل سکونت / فصل 8

بخش 2 فصل 7

توضیح مختصر

  • زمان مطالعه 0 دقیقه
  • سطح خیلی سخت

دانلود اپلیکیشن «زیبوک»

این فصل را می‌توانید به بهترین شکل و با امکانات عالی در اپلیکیشن «زیبوک» بخوانید

دانلود اپلیکیشن «زیبوک»

فایل صوتی

برای دسترسی به این محتوا بایستی اپلیکیشن زبانشناس را نصب کنید.

متن انگلیسی فصل

Dying Oceans

We tend to see oceans as unfathomable, the closest thing we have on this planet to outer space: dark, forbidding, and, especially in the depths, quite weird and mysterious. “Who has known the ocean?” Rachel Carson wrote in her essay “Undersea,” published twenty-five years before she tackled the desecration of the planet’s land by human hands, and industrial “cure-alls,” in Silent Spring: “Neither you nor I, with our earth-bound senses, know the foam and surge of the tide that beats over the crab hiding under the seaweed of his tide-pool home; or the lilt of the long, slow swells of mid-ocean, where shoals of wandering fish prey and are preyed upon, and the dolphin breaks the waves to breathe the upper atmosphere.” But the ocean isn’t the other; we are. Water is not a beachside attraction for land animals: at 70 percent of the earth’s surface it is, by an enormous margin, the planet’s predominant environment. Along with everything else it does, oceans feed us: globally, seafood accounts for nearly a fifth of all animal protein in the human diet, and in coastal areas it can provide much more. The oceans also maintain our planetary seasons, through prehistoric currents like the Gulf Stream, and modulate the temperature of the planet, absorbing much of the heat of the sun.

Perhaps “has fed,” “has maintained,” and “has modulated” are better terms, since global warming threatens to undermine each of those functions. Already, fish populations have migrated north by hundreds of miles in search of colder waters—flounder by 250 miles off the American East Coast, mackerel so far from their Continental home that the fishermen chasing them are no longer bound by rules set by the European Union. One study tracing human impact on marine life found only 13 percent of the ocean undamaged, and parts of the Arctic have been so transformed by warming that scientists are beginning to wonder how long they can keep calling those waters “arctic.” And however much sea-level rise and coastal flooding have dominated our fears about the impact of climate change on the planet’s ocean water, there is much more than just that to worry over.

At present, more than a fourth of the carbon emitted by humans is sucked up by the oceans, which also, in the past fifty years, have absorbed 90 percent of global warming’s excess heat. Half of that heat has been absorbed since 1997, and today’s seas carry at least 15 percent more heat energy than they did in the year 2000—absorbing three times as much additional energy, in just those two decades, as is contained in the entire planet’s fossil fuel reserves. But the result of all that carbon dioxide absorption is what’s called “ocean acidification,” which is exactly what it sounds like, and which is also already burning through some of the planet’s water basins—you may remember these as the place where life arose in the first place. All on its own—through its effect on phytoplankton, which release sulfur into the air that helps cloud formation—ocean acidification could add between a quarter and half of a degree of warming.

You have probably heard of “coral bleaching”—that is, coral dying—in which warmer ocean waters strip reefs of the protozoa, called zooxanthellae, that provide, through photosynthesis, up to 90 percent of the energy needs of the coral. Each reef is an ecosystem as complex as a modern city, and the zooxanthellae are its food supply, the basic building block of an energy chain; when they die, the whole complex is starved with military efficiency, a city under siege or blockade. Since 2016, as much as half of Australia’s landmark Great Barrier Reef has been stripped in this way. These large-scale die-outs are called “mass bleaching events”; one unfolded, globally, from 2014 to 2017. Already, coral life has declined so much that it has created an entirely new layer in the ocean, between 30 and 150 meters below the surface, which scientists have taken to calling a “twilight zone.” According to the World Resources Institute, by 2030 ocean warming and acidification will threaten 90 percent of all reefs.

This is very bad news, because reefs support as much as a quarter of all marine life and supply food and income for half a billion people. They also protect against flooding from storm surges—a function that offers value in the many billions, with reefs presently worth at least $400 million annually to Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Cuba, and Mexico—$400 million annually to each. Ocean acidification will also damage fish populations directly. Though scientists aren’t yet sure how to predict the effects on the stuff we haul out of the ocean to eat, they do know that in acid waters, oysters and mussels will struggle to grow their shells, and that rising carbon concentrations will impair fishes’ sense of smell—which you may not have known they had, but which often aids in navigation. Off the coasts of Australia, fish populations have declined an estimated 32 percent in just ten years.

It has become quite common to say that we are living through a mass extinction—a period in which human activity has multiplied the rate at which species are disappearing from the earth by a factor perhaps as large as a thousand. It is probably also fair to call this an era marked by what is called ocean anoxification. Over the past fifty years, the amount of ocean water with no oxygen at all has quadrupled globally, giving us a total of more than four hundred “dead zones”; oxygen-deprived zones have grown by several million square kilometers, roughly the size of all of Europe; and hundreds of coastal cities now sit on fetid, under-oxygenated ocean. This is partly due to the simple warming of the planet, since warmer waters can carry less oxygen. But it is also partly the result of straightforward pollution—a recent Gulf of Mexico dead zone, all 9,000 square miles of it, was powered by the runoff of fertilizer chemicals washing into the Mississippi from the industrial farms of the Midwest. In 2014, a not-atypical toxic event struck Lake Erie, when fertilizer from corn and soy farms in Ohio spawned an algae bloom that cut off drinking water for Toledo. And in 2018, a dead zone the size of Florida was discovered in the Arabian Sea—so big that researchers believed it might encompass the entire 63,700-square-mile Gulf of Oman, seven times the size of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. “The ocean,” said the lead researcher Bastien Queste, “is suffocating.” Dramatic declines in ocean oxygen have played a role in many of the planet’s worst mass extinctions, and this process by which dead zones grow—choking off marine life and wiping out fisheries—is already quite advanced not only in the Gulf of Mexico but just off Namibia, where hydrogen sulfide is bubbling out of the sea along a thousand-mile stretch of land known as the Skeleton Coast. The name originally referred to the detritus of wrecked ships, but today it’s more apt than ever. Hydrogen sulfide is also one of the things scientists suspect finally capped the end-Permian extinction, once all the feedback loops had been triggered. It is so toxic that evolution has trained us to recognize the tiniest, safest traces, which is why our noses are so exquisitely skilled at registering flatulence.

And then there is the possible slowdown of the “ocean conveyor belt,” the great circulatory system made up of the Gulf Stream and other currents that is the primary way the planet regulates regional temperatures. How does this work? The water of the Gulf Stream cools off in the atmosphere of the Norwegian Sea, making the water itself denser, which sends it down into the bottom of the ocean, where it is then pushed southward by more Gulf Stream water—itself cooling in the north and falling to the ocean floor—eventually all the way to Antarctica, where the cold water returns to the surface and begins to heat up and travel north. The trip can take a thousand years.

As soon as the conveyor belt became the subject of real study, in the 1980s, there were those oceanographers who worried it might shut down, which would lead to a dramatic disequilibration of the planet’s climate—the hotter parts getting much hotter and the colder parts much colder. A total shutdown would be inconceivably catastrophic, though the impacts look deceptively innocuous on first scan—a colder Europe, more intense weather, additional sea-level rise. Invariably, this is described as the Day After Tomorrow scenario, and it is a strange twist of fate that so forgettable a movie has become the memorable shorthand for this particular worst-case nightmare.

A shutdown of the conveyor belt is not a scenario that any credible scientists worry about on any human timescale. But a slowdown is another matter. Already, climate change has depressed the velocity of the Gulf Stream by as much as 15 percent, a development that scientists call “an unprecedented event in the past millennium,” believed to be one reason the sea-level rise along the East Coast of the United States is dramatically higher than elsewhere in the world. And in 2018, two major papers triggered a new wave of concern over the conveyor belt, technically called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which was found to be moving at its slowest rate in at least 1,500 years. This had happened about a hundred years ahead of the schedule of even alarmed scientists and marked what the climate scientist Michael Mann called, ominously, a “tipping point.” Further change, of course, is to come: the transformation of the ocean by warming making these unknown waters doubly unknowable, remodeling the planet’s seas before we ever were able to discover their depths and all the life submerged there.

مشارکت کنندگان در این صفحه

تا کنون فردی در بازسازی این صفحه مشارکت نداشته است.

🖊 شما نیز می‌توانید برای مشارکت در ترجمه‌ی این صفحه یا اصلاح متن انگلیسی، به این لینک مراجعه بفرمایید.