
Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years - anon1385
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels
======
moultano
In a bit of cosmic irony, most fossil fuel was created from mass extinctions
that accompanied changes in ocean chemistry:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event)

~~~
perlpimp
Very cool I guess we will have to adapt. As current Industrial Complex is too
large and unwieldy to react to such thing.

~~~
ommunist
The Industrial Complex is far too small to be even considered among such
players as Litosphere and Biosphere.

~~~
Daishiman
This is absolutely false. The entire academic world says otherwise with a
fantastically high margin of confidence.

------
JumpCrisscross
How credible a source is IPSO, the author of the report backing this story?
From what I can tell it's a U.K. non-profit hosted by the Zoological Society
of London [1], itself a U.K. non-profit [2]. Alex Rogers, IPSO's Scientific
Director [1], is also a Professor in Conservation Biology at the University of
Oxford [3].

Paper article is based on: [http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Bijma-et-
al-2013.pdf](http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Bijma-et-al-2013.pdf)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Programme_on_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Programme_on_the_State_of_the_Ocean)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoological_Society_of_London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoological_Society_of_London)

[3]
[http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/rogers_ad.htm](http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/rogers_ad.htm)

~~~
Aloisius
Well ocean acidification is real and proven. At this point all we're arguing
about is how many years we have left.

~~~
noonespecial
This is certainly true, but amount matters. If its 300 years then we have a
problem, if its 3000, maybe not so much. Articles like this do not help give
perspective.

~~~
venomsnake
Not at all ... if the acidification is moving some positive feedback loops
(and it seems it is) we have much less.

~~~
ars
There are almost no positive feedback loops in nature, for the simple reason
that they tend to get triggered by random variations and feedback on themself
till they reach limit and convert to negative loops.

~~~
Daishiman
Try Siberian bog swamps releasing an amount of methane with effects equal to
the US yearly emissions.

~~~
kbutler
"The fact that the ice core records do not seem full of methane spikes due to
high-latitude sources makes it seem like the real world is not as sensitive as
we were able to set the model up to be."

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-a...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-
ado-about-methane/)

------
hcarvalhoalves
The short-term scenario is not good, but from the little I know about aquatic
biology/chemistry, it might not be as catastrophical as the article pictures
it.

Increased CO2 levels should just cause algae/cyanobacteria blooms, which will
balance CO2/O2 levels back again and foster primary consumers (solving over-
fishing as a bonus). Also, H2CO3 gets buffered by all the Ca/Mg content in the
ocean, so I don't think it's even _possible_ for the pH to just drop forever
(as in the graph someone posted in one of the comments here).

~~~
randomfool
I live in Seattle and in just the past few years, beaches which used to be
absolutely covered in oysters are now barren because of acidification. And by
covered, I mean you need a path through them to walk (they are sharp), and the
most difficult thing when picking them was to pick up a single one rather than
cluster. This was on the Hood canal for anyone in the area.

[http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-
change/2013/sep/11/...](http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-
change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/?prmid=4939)

It absolutely amazed me how fast everything disappeared. It really shocked me.

~~~
ommunist
Local insignificant event.

~~~
Daishiman
The appearance of multiple local effects is a clear indicator or a global
trned.

------
colmvp
The Seattle Times did an interactive article about this very subject last
month:

[http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-
change/2013/sep/11/...](http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-
change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/)

~~~
wiredfool
I read that just after reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Capitol trilogy. (40
days of rain, 50 degrees below, 60 days...) Yeah, it's science fiction, but
it's plausible hard sf, not space opera. And the Time article sounded way too
close to some of what was happening in the books.

Ocean acidification was mentioned somewhat in passing in the last book as
something that's very hard to reverse, partially because of the chemistry and
partially because of the sheer amount of chemicals that would be required.
That was in contrast to a multi hundred billion dollar salt transport to
restart the thermo haline circulation.

------
SCAQTony
Let's presume it is all true. Gizmag quoted a study that 15-container ships
(just 15) dole out the same amount of pollution as 760-million cars. (I shit
you not):

[http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-
pollution/11526/](http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/)

God knows what coal and power plants produce but nonetheless, why does the
IPSO and The Guardian have to scare the shit out of everyone instead of
offering some sort of real, solution?

If this is all true and this is as dire as they say, one would think or
suggest that the military take over the shipping duties of these 15-container-
ships and use 15-nuclear-powered vessels instead? this would remove the carbon
footprint of these polluting vessels and/or 750-million cars per day with way
less waste?

Next, onto the power plants instead of the barbecues and lawn mowers?

~~~
nrmilstein
Not all journalism or scientific reporting is about presenting solutions, and
pointing out the problems (especially of this severity, if the article is to
be believed) is an important step. Furthermore, as the article says, I don't
think anyone knows the solution. Even if we drastically reduce carbon
emissions, it probably won't help.

I often find an attitude of dismissal and disdain towards environmental
reporting like this on Hacker News. I think it stems from how we're so used to
the optimism and can-do attitude of Silicon Valley that it's hard to digest
how we may have created a problem we can't solve. It feels better to think
"oh, they're just not being innovative enough in their solutions" and present
oneself as above the fray.

But the stark reality, if the science is to be believed, is that we're on the
path towards major environmental changes in the foreseeable future, and as of
right now, we don't have a solution.

~~~
7952
I agree with the criticism of HN. The lack of understanding of basic geography
and the environment is shocking. Its like listening to a bunch of non-
technical sales people discuss computer security.

------
Smudge
"This story has broken an embargo and will shortly be taken down. It will be
relaunched to the site at 6.00am BST. Apologies"

Interesting.

~~~
civilian
In case they will be taking it down, here is the text:

Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
Overfishing and pollution are part of the problem, scientists say, warning
that mass extinction of species may be inevitable

By Fiona Harvey in Kiel The Guardian, Thursday 3 October 2013

Coral is particularly at risk from acidification and rising sea temperatures.
Photograph: Paul Jarrett/PA The oceans are more acidic now than they have been
for at least 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil
fuels, and a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable
as a result, leading marine scientists warned on Thursday.

An international audit of the health of the oceans has found that overfishing
and pollution are also contributing to the crisis, in a deadly combination of
destructive forces that are imperilling marine life, on which billions of
people depend for their nutrition and livelihood.

In the starkest warning yet of the threat to ocean health, the International
Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) said: "This [acidification] is
unprecedented in the Earth's known history. We are entering an unknown
territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable
evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun." It
published its findings in the State of the Oceans report, collated every two
years from global monitoring and other research studies.

Alex Rogers, professor of biology at Oxford University, said: "The health of
the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are
seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent
than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to
everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the
ocean to support life on Earth."

Coral is particularly at risk. Increased acidity dissolves the calcium
carbonate skeletons that form the structure of reefs, and increasing
temperatures lead to bleaching where the corals lose symbiotic algae they rely
on. The report says that world governments' current pledges to curb carbon
emissions would not go far enough or fast enough to save many of the world's
reefs. There is a time lag of several decades between the carbon being emitted
and the effects on seas, meaning that further acidification and further
warming of the oceans are inevitable, even if we drastically reduce emissions
very quickly. There is as yet little sign of that, with global greenhouse gas
output still rising.

Corals are vital to the health of fisheries, because they act as nurseries to
young fish and smaller species that provide food for bigger ones.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the seas – at least a third of
the carbon that humans have released has been dissolved in this way, according
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and makes them more acidic.
But IPSO found the situation was even more dire than that laid out by the
world's top climate scientists in their landmark report last week.

In absorbing carbon and heat from the atmosphere, the world's oceans have
shielded humans from the worst effects of global warming, the marine
scientists said. This has slowed the rate of climate change on land, but its
profound effects on marine life are only now being understood.

Acidification harms marine creatures that rely on calcium carbonate to build
coral reefs and shells, as well as plankton, and the fish that rely on them.
Jane Lubchenco, former director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and a marine biologist, said the effects were already being
felt in some oyster fisheries, where young larvae were failing to develop
properly in areas where the acid rates are higher, such as on the west coast
of the US. "You can actually see this happening," she said. "It's not
something a long way into the future. It is a very big problem."

But the chemical changes in the ocean go further, said Rogers. Marine animals
use chemical signals to perceive their environment and locate prey and
predators, and there is evidence that their ability to do so is being impaired
in some species.

Trevor Manuel, a South African government minister and co-chair of the Global
Ocean Commission, called the report "a deafening alarm bell on humanity's
wider impacts on the global oceans".

"Unless we restore the ocean's health, we will experience the consequences on
prosperity, wellbeing and development. Governments must respond as urgently as
they do to national security threats – in the long run, the impacts are just
as important," he said.

Current rates of carbon release into the oceans are 10 times faster than those
before the last major species extinction, which was the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum extinction, about 55m years ago. The IPSO scientists can tell
that the current ocean acidification is the highest for 300m years from
geological records.

They called for strong action by governments to limit carbon concentrations in
the atmosphere to no more than 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide
equivalent. That would require urgent and deep reductions in fossil fuel use.

No country in the world is properly tackling overfishing, the report found,
and almost two thirds are failing badly. At least 70 per cent of the world's
fish populations are over-exploited. Giving local communities more control
over their fisheries, and favouring small-scale operators over large
commercial vessels would help this, the report found. Subsidies that drive
overcapacity in fishing fleets should also be eliminated, marine conservation
zones set up and destructive fishing equipment should be banned. There should
also be better governance of the areas of ocean beyond countries' national
limits.

The IPSO report also found the oceans were being "deoxygenated" – their
average oxygen content is likely to fall by as much as 7 per cent by 2100,
partly because of the run-off of fertilisers and sewage into the seas, and
also as a side-effect of global warming. The reduction of oxygen is a concern
as areas of severe depletion become effectively dead.

Rogers said: "People are just not aware of the massive roles that the oceans
play in the Earth's systems. Phytoplankton produce 40 per cent of the oxygen
in the atmosphere, for example, and 90 per cent of all life is in the oceans.
Because the oceans are so vast, there are still areas we have never really
seen. We have a very poor grasp of some of the biochemical processes in the
world's biggest ecosystem."

The five chapters of which the State of the Oceans report is a summary have
been published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, a peer-reviewed journal.

------
graycat
Yup, why do I suspect that this article is more of the same from the big
movement to claim that humans are evil, carbon is filthy, filthy humans are
ruining the planet with evil carbon, or evil humans are ruining the planet
with filthy carbon, and the only hope for the planet is massive, UN directed
carbon cap and trade to send massive amounts of money from the evil, rich
nations to the noble, poor nations, and that humans should junk their cars and
either walk or use bicycles, and the rich nations should feel ashamed and
guilty for their grossly excessive use of the finite resources of our pure,
precious, pristine, delicate planet, right at the tipping point of total
devastation?

Do I have that about right? Or we could borrow from the Mayans and kill people
and pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky or, in
this case, save the planet from filthy carbon from evil humans. Or, we need a
boys' band complete with uniforms to counter the sin and corruption of a pool
table in town. Let's have some more flim-flam, fraud scams!

------
kmfrk
I hope you like jellyfish.

~~~
memracom
Can humans eat jellyfish? Maybe part of the solution is to shift overfishing
to the jellyfish population.

~~~
svachalek
They can be a bit like rubbery noodles if they're not thoroughly dried, or
crispy like shredded cabbage if they are. I don't know if the edible ones
don't sting or they do something to neutralize the stingers. (Jellyfish
stingers are spring loaded and generally work quite well whether the jellyfish
is alive or not.)

------
IanDrake
Just thinking out loud here...

Can anyone think of other cases where science is used to predict the future of
complex systems more than 2 years in advance?

I'm not talking about moore's law, but statistical models used to predict the
future. How many solar flares will there be in 2020? What will the DOW be in
2050? How many democrats will be in congress in 2021? Stuff like that.

So far, the only ones I can think of are models that always spit out the same
message... "The earth is dying and we're at fault."

I'm just curious if anyone knows of any predictive models that weren't created
to scare the shit out of people.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can anyone think of other cases where science is used to predict the future
> of complex systems more than 2 years in advance?

Every empirically-based plan for business, long-term policy, etc., ever. The
forward-looking aspect of the science of cosmology. Lots more.

> So far, the only ones I can think of are models that always spit out the
> same message... "The earth is dying and we're at fault."

That's more indicative of the biases through which you filter the available
information (perhaps most importantly, the bias in the information sources
from which you _receive_ information -- e.g., if the main place you get
information about "science used to predict the future of complex systems" is
the mainstream commercial media, there's a pretty heavy bias in what
predictions you are going to hear about.)

~~~
IanDrake
>Every empirically-based plan for business, long-term policy, etc., ever.

Sure, all business do forecasting. That's pretty simple stuff.

>if the main place you get information about "science used to predict the
future of complex systems" is the mainstream commercial media

That's true, where should I be looking? Can you link to specific examples?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sure, all business do forecasting. That's pretty simple stuff.

Lots of it involves predicting the behavior of complex economic and social
systems using empirically-tested (scientific) methodologies.

> That's true, where should I be looking? Can you link to specific examples?

If you want to know about where science is used to predict the behavior of
complex systems, one place to look would be the scientific literature of
fields which are concerned with the behavior of complex systems.

~~~
IanDrake
Do you realize you basically just said "If you know where to look, you'll find
it"?

Thanks MOTO. Any links?

------
NatW
some context: e.g:
[http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Gra...](http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg)

more context:
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/chart.png](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/chart.png)

..and a frightening projection:
[http://oceanacidification12.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/4/2/14422...](http://oceanacidification12.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/4/2/14422224/2688836_orig.jpg?0)

------
genwin
> imperilling marine life, on which billions of people depend for their
> nutrition and livelihood

Nature always win in the end! Hopefully the plunge in human population can be
handled mostly by attrition.

~~~
jussij
If things get too bad for too many, I suspect the result in an increase in war
and conflict.

~~~
marcosdumay
What will make things really bad, but for many less people.

Confirming the GP's argument, that Nature wins in the end. Winning is easier
when you are not fighting anything.

~~~
e12e
Keep in mind that the last world war resulted in nuclear attacks. I don't
think we have any guarantee that "mutually assured destruction" will be enough
to save us if there is another truly global war between the remaining
super/nuclear powers.

And now we also have stuff like "depleted" uranium rounds which have pretty
serious consequences on future generations.

------
j_baker
They talk about the oxygen content falling by 7% by 2100. This makes me
wonder: let's assume the worst and earth is headed for a mass extinction
event. How long do these events usually take? Are they slow processes, or does
everything just die one day?

~~~
Daishiman
What would happen is that the rate of biodiversity drops drastically, and
organisms that are simple and adaptable (like cockroaches, algae, jellyfich,
certain classes of bacteria, small mammals, urban birds) adapt and thrive and
consume the rest of the flora and fauna, and permanently adapt their
environments making the situation extremely fragile for more complex and
delicate birds and larger vertebrates.

Also, the system goes out of the equilibrium slowly developed in the last
climate age.

As far as crops go, we'll see new varieties of plant illnesses appearing in
places we hadn't seen them before. Unpredictable weather kills the more
fragile species that depend on consistent climate.

Some ecosystems become simply uninhabitable; the Siberian bog swamps which are
beginning to melt and release a greater amount of methane than ever before
seen by humanity will not support the current crop of bacteria and plants.
However there are no mammals and complex predators that can effectively fill
the niche that will be created (at least not for potentially many thousands of
years). So what you'll have is the growth of tall grasses and bushes that can
survive on the new climate, but lacking a sustaining ecosystem, there won't be
birds or large predators. Since insects develop very rapidly they will
probably thrive, but their impact on the new ecosystem will not be
predictable.

A lot of land probably won't be able to support crops, however the current
state of industrial farming leaves the land depleted, so it will take many
generations to replete the topsoil necessary for more balanced wildlife to
survive.

Amphibians are already at a stage of mass extinction; their porous skin allows
for a very large degree of exchange with chemicals in their environment, and
are already suffering the effects of pesticides and herbicides in the
environment. If those things biodegrade effectively that effect will not be
felt in a few decades, but the change of climate will probably be too much (it
already is).

~~~
gizmo686
>organisms that are simple and adaptable

I would be careful with the word simple. Adaptable is the important component,
and that seems to be related more to being small and not particularly
specialized. Simple sounds like a description of the amount of genetic data
the species contains. It has been a while since I took biology, but if I
recall correctly, even small and adaptable species have a lot of genetic data.
When a mass extinction event happens, once the environment stabilizes, the
doors are open for large animals again, and the small ones already have the
genetic complexity needed to fill those niches relatively quickly.

~~~
j_baker
If adaptability (without simplicity) is the key component, that sounds like
somewhat good news for humanity, us being a versatile type, and we can eat a
lot of things for food. It's not quite clear to me that survival necessarily
implies smallness.

Though I would imagine that a _lot_ of humans would die in the process. It
would make the black plague look like child's play.

------
protomyth
Can the CO2 be removed from the ocean and broken into C and O2? Is this geo-
engineering we can do?

~~~
kintamanimatt
There is a proposed geoengineering approach, but the authors of this page
don't recommend it:

[https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/GeoEng...](https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/GeoEngineering.html)

[http://www.cquestrate.com/the-idea](http://www.cquestrate.com/the-idea)

~~~
protomyth
Are the authors against all geo-engineering or just this plan?

~~~
kintamanimatt
They seem very in favor reducing over-fishing, switching to clean energy
sources, etc. They're only in favor of geoengineering if politicians can't get
their shit together and we end up on the brink of a disaster.

"We do not promote the use of the [geoengineering] method highlighted in this
section. We merely present it here as an interesting solution proposed by the
field of geoengineering, a popularly growing discipline which seeks to provide
technical solutions which manipulate the earth’s climate in order to
counteract the effects of global climate change."

"Any solution proposed by the field of geoengineering is akin to addressing
the symptoms and not the source of the problem."

\--
[https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/Soluti...](https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/spring2010/chang/Solutions.html)

~~~
fleitz
The symptoms are all we care about, why would anyone give a shit about CO2
levels if it didn't cause global warming?

It's not like it's toxic. If it's cheaper to geoengineer the CO2 away, why
not?

~~~
TillE
Fossil fuels are not a long-term energy solution in any case, so it makes more
sense to attack the problem from that angle.

And I suspect the answer is that it's not cheaper. I'm unaware of any cheap,
scalable, safe method of reducing CO2 levels. It's difficult to conceive of a
practical solution to global warming that doesn't involve drastically reducing
the ongoing CO2 output. How are you going to balance out 30+ billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide per year?

------
Demiurge
Is there any reason no one is talking about terraforming seriously yet? What
kind of technologies can be used to draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere, how
much would it cost to make a difference?

~~~
waps
Basic thermodynamics can provide a lower limit : at least 9x more energy than
was gained by burning it (except for oil burned in power plants, where it'd be
6-7x, but that's not much).

That seems to mean that without massive expansions in nuclear power it's just
not in the cards.

~~~
Demiurge
But like with nuclear power, we don't have to do all the work. We don't need
to generate electricity and then run conventional a CO2 filter.
Hypothetically, if we dump 1 trillion dollars into genetic engineering, why
can't we design some biological chain reaction that would do all the work?

~~~
waps
Actually I sort of like the medieval approach : government prizes. We want
this done, why not create a competition ? If a company can solve this problem,
document how you've done it (AFTER the fact) and present it to a board of
government scientists. If they believe you, you get the prize money.

And make the prize money something like $5 billion or so. Chump change for
what you're asking for. Besides, it has to be an amount that would provide
decades of comfort for a company of at least a dozen people + a nice reward
for any investors.

This worked for draining swamps in the late middle ages. It worked for
building things like clocks and compasses, and these sorts of prizes is how
ocean-capable ships were designed in the first place. I would argue that the
(early) prizes were for 'allow a ship to navigate without any visible markers
on the ground', about as nebulous a concept as 'lower atmospheric co2 by 50% -
or at least prove you can do it' would be.

~~~
Demiurge
I agree, that's probably more sensible than organizing another conglomerate.
The question is, why hasn't this been done?

------
efnx
It's sad to me that this is not the top post. It seems that fact is a
reflection of the problem at hand. We don't care about the oceans as much as
we care about Twitter. :(

~~~
aaron695
I find it incredibly sad it has made the top post.

The article does not link to any peer review studies to prove it's point,
which to me means it's probably bunk, taking a know issue and enlarging it to
sensationalise.

And it's sad people fall for this.

~~~
enraged_camel
With a little bit of research on your own you can find out for yourself that
this is an incredibly important issue that affects everyone on the planet, and
there is nothing "sensational" about the way it is reported.

~~~
aaron695
Yet you seriously haven't included any links to this easy to find research the
we are at an all time acidification high in 300 million years?

Pretty sure the title might actually get it right unlike the actual article
"Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years"

It is the rate of acidification, not the acidification itself that is high.

------
ommunist
This is one more 'climate change' BS. It does not stop fascinate me how self
important climate change advocates are. Humans are not geological factor.
Besides no one really have time machine to check validity of such claims. And
we know very small about actual chemistry of the oceans, especially when it is
deeper than SF beaches.

Disclaimer: I participated in research of lake sediments looking for insights
about metal pollutant trends.

~~~
Daishiman
Wait, so you're saying that despite the fact that: \- We have accurate
measurements of ocean Ph and CO2 concentrations for the past 50 years \- We
have a clear understanding of the emissions of CO2 from manmade sources and a
record that goes back since the beginning of the industrial age \- We
understand the effects of acidification on a large variety of ocean species \-
We see a trend of ocean absorbtion of CO2 absolutely consistent with out
knowledge of atmospheric chemistry

That means that it's BS?

If you had some evidence to back up the fact as to why a set of multiple
thousands of studies in oceanography are flawed when they point out to a
singular trend, with a margin of confidence greater than most of the so-called
scientific facts that are out there, I wouldn't think what you write is plain
denialism.

------
xsace
It's like playing Sim Earth on my dad SE30 as a kid. I could never get it
right and always ended up with a desert or icy planet :(

------
rubyalex
What does 300m years mean? Is that 300 or 300 Million?

~~~
jonnathanson
I was confused by this, as well. Given the scale of geologic time, I'd
_assume_ they meant 300 million. But a single "M" often means thousand,
especially if it's lowercase. So it's confusingly worded.

~~~
ksrm
>But a single "M" often means thousand, especially if it's lowercase.

Where? I can find no reference to this.

~~~
jonnathanson
Most often in financial accounting, though conventionally, in other domains
such as academia. Depending on the news outlet, some magazines and papers will
also use "M" for thousand and "MM" for million, though that practice is
probably dying out in the popular press. And of course, the "M" in "CPM"
stands for thousand.

"M" was originally an abbreviation for "mille," which is French for "thousand"
(by way of Latin origins). Traditionally speaking, one "M" means thousand, and
"MM" means thousand-thousand, or million.

Example:

[http://blog.accountingcoach.com/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-
for...](http://blog.accountingcoach.com/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-for/)

------
shire
And this might get worse because population is increasing so rapidly.

------
samstave
Checkout this crazy theory:

[http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/03/16/the-mother-of-
all-c...](http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/03/16/the-mother-of-all-
conspiracies-pt-7/)

------
ffrryuu
Acidic loving species rejoice!

------
16s
The sun is going to burn out some day. When that happens, no one will care
about ocean acidity.

------
eonil
I think radioactive garbages in Pacific ocean from Fukushima would do better
job.

~~~
eloff
Are you high? What does radioactivity from Fukushima have to do with ocean
acidification?

------
AsymetricCom
Kind of off-topic: if ocean temperatures are increasing, isn't this the same
thing as the ocean having more potential energy? If energy generation from
waves was increased substantially, would this cool the ocean or act as a
dampener against the earth's rotation? Perhaps both?

~~~
whatshisface
Heat, ocean waves and the earth's rotation are so many orders of magnitude
apart in terms of frequency that a machine designed to dampen one could not
possibly have an effect on the others.

------
ancarda
While I recognise this question might be abrasive, I feel compelled to ask it.

Why does this belong on Hacker News?

This isn't technology. This isn't legal news (i.e. software patents). This is
in no way related to _Hacker_ News. I have no problem with interesting
articles being upvoted, but I feel we need a place to put these or a tagging
system similar to lobsters.

~~~
obstacle1
>This is in no way related to Hacker News

The vast majority of "show HN: my new disruptive pseudo-plagiarized wheel-
reinventing RESTful scalable .js + go single-page site framework" or
"_insert_valley_startup_here_ plans to revolutionize
_trivial_consumer_SaaS_niche_" posts have little to do with actual hacking,
either. Few complain about those.

Here we have a post that points out a _massive_ systemic problem we're facing
as a species for which we have no current solution. Pretty sure we're in
hacker territory. Much more so than in the case of the Yet-Another-Web-
Framework or Disruptive-Instagram-For- Squirrels crap we normally get on the
front page.

