Copenhagen: Look to the Sea?

The oceans may be largely overlooked at the climate conference in Copenhagen, but they will bear the brunt of climate change. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The oceans control climate change. Not only do the world's waters absorb the bulk of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they also absorb the bulk of the extra carbon dioxide. And that means one thing: a more acid ocean. New research shows that while some shell-forming sea critters, like lobsters, will actually build thicker shells in a more acid ocean, clams and oysters, among others, have shells that partially dissolved under the new conditions. And tiny creatures known as foramnifera are already building less thick shells as a result of a drop in ocean pH from 8.2 to 8.1 over the course of the last century. That tenth of a point on the logarithmic pH scale actually means a roughly 30 percent increase in acidity. Warmer water also takes up more space. That's led to sea level rise of 17 centimeters over the 20th century, enough to erode or submerge some 60 extra feet of beach on the U.S. East Coast. Nothing agreed in Copenhagen or hereafter will be able to stop either this thermal expansion of the seas or the rising acidity of the waters. That would take actually reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, perhaps through devices to pull it out of the air. Already, human impacts on the ocean are large, from spurring jellyfish to dominate to boosting algae blooms and dead zones. The Baltic Sea that Copenhagen guards is the world's largest such dead zone. With water, water everywhere, perhaps it's time to think.

—David Biello

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe