Slashdot Mirror
Climatologists: By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean
merbs writes: The ocean is in the midst of radical, manmade change. It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals. But humans are indeed remaking the ocean, in almost every conceivable way. The ocean we know today—that billions swim, fish, float, and surf in—that vast planetary body of water will be of an entirely different character by the end of the century: hotter, higher, trashier, and more acidic.
I dunno if it's the summary or the article that's trash, but wow. Terrible.
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Hey we got computers that could beat people at chess. Be patient, its just taking a little longer than expected. :-)
Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
They weren't experts in political malfeasance so they probably accurately projected out the slopes of current trends at the time - not realizing that the economy was in the process of being wrecked.
The popular expression of the common realization that this has happened is "where are the flying cars?" (thermodynamics notwithstanding).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
my favorite are the articles that ridicule al gore for riding private jets
as if he had a choice and could use a magic carpet
he's stuck with the technology we have today, which does not preclude him from the valid observation that we are changing the climate, and that we should do something about it
even if he hiked from meeting to meeting the morons still wouldn't listen to him
the "logic" is:
"al gore rides a private jet, therefore we can ignore the evidence of climate change"
this is their actual thought process. "al gore is a hypocrite. therefore climate change isn't real" {end entire thought process on the topic}
dumbfounding. pathetic beyond words. as if one personality is central to the entire question of climate change. but, that's the way simple minds work. make cartoons out of someone you dislike, also for manipulated reasons, and that decides the entire issue for the tribal tools
they don't even notice they're swallowing propaganda paid for by industries that don't want to pay for carbon reductions. in return they get more violent weather and warmer temperatures, floods, etc. and they still swallow the propaganda, regurgigate it out, because it pushes their little small minded hateful buttons. perfect little tools, with simple minded concerns and prejudices, easily led, pointed in a direction and they scream in support of positions that really in the end, only hurts them. just like healthcare, just like taxes on rich, just like a whole host of issues
it's quite stunning how you can fool pinheads to agitate against their own self-interest
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thank you for your polite response, but you missed the point, and perhaps I did not express it well.
The point is this: With friends like Al Gore et al, who needs enemies? With Billy Clinton saying it's settled science, who is going to believe it?
Gore's clowning approach detracts from discussion and realization of the actual issue --- you see or listen to him and you say, "this can't be true" and move on, which is unfortunately not helpful, because even though he is a clown, he could actually be right about some things.
Science is supposed to be objective, not political. But the AGW issue has become about 99% about politics. That will not help recognize and resolve the issues. And people taking obviously extreme positions (either way) detract from the discussion by diverting the focus onto their ranting and raving, rather than remaining with looking for viable solutions.
exactly
useful idiots
used, like tools. their heads filled with nonsense that push their simpleminded predictable buttons, and they're wound up like angry little robots, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid, in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including the idiots, except some plutocrats
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm quite disappointed in Slashdots readers.
Many of the people who read Slashdot are IT sector workers which means that many of us lead data led lives. We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
The information contained in this article is absolutely nothing new at all, most of it has been known since the 1970's. You can not pump carbon into the atmosphere and expect there to be no consequence, much of that carbon is absorbed by the sea converting it to carbonic acid. This isn't news its olds, the difference now is that we can put a date on the likely tipping point for significant change. The data can't be argued with you might as well shout at a brick wall. Science will report on both the data and findings and what it means working with current projections. you may argue about the destination, but the projections are accurate and in-line with expectations. What I would be interested un seeing is the data that projects either a deferment or reversal of change and what the requirements would be.
Be my guest however, complain about how negative it all is while doing nothing about it. Afterall its easy to believe in the la-la fairy its alright alternative than face a reality.
And you are the reason I call people like you eco-nutters.
You scream that the world is dying due to Co2, tell us all to go back to living like cavemen, tell us there is no time to properly come up with correct solutions so force us to waste billions on useless solar and wind. (if it was so urgent, we should be building nuclear!!).
But then for Al Gore, you give him a free pass to use the most polluting method of transport. (forget mentioning "offsets" he pays himself for that!!!).
At least if he used a normal "commercial flight" he would be spreading the damage among the number of people on board!!.
Better still use fucking teleconferencing...
Good to see that you understand what he has done to you --- "it's quite stunning how you can fool pinheads to agitate against their own self-interest"
You ever heard the story of the boy that cried wolf?
Expect people to doubt you if you're going to make apocalyptic prophecies and they fall through time and time again.
When religion does this people like you call it a fraud, when science does it people like you act surprised that no one bothers listening anymore after the Nth time you get it wrong.
I don't think people here are denying the basic chemistry, just the endless predictions of hell on earth.
I'm a working scientist, I read the climategate emails, they are completely ordinary, there's nothing to see. A few out of context quotes appeared in the press and gave bad impression, that's all it was.
Thirdly, go re-read the Climategate emails.
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong. Or lying.
Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!
They were lying
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!
They were wrong or lying.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
It's called Crying Wolf effect.
We've now had 20 years of hyperbolic, ridiculous claims from the AGW advocates, none of which has actually come to pass.
There have been histrionic predictions about disappearing glaciers, extinct polar bears, 50cm+ rising seas, 50 million climate refugees, catastrophic hurricane seasons, ice-free arctic, all which should have come to pass by now. We've had spurious statistics, cooked data, 'smoothing', manufactured data, bent hockey-sticks, collusive behavior outright mendacity and "dog ate my homework"-level excuses for missing original data. I won't even begin to describe the number of errors in An Inconvenient Truth. Couple that to the near-zealotry exhibited by the faithful, and it's not hard to understand why the moderate middle reacts negatively to the latest FUD.
I'm not saying that the anti-Global Warming "industry" hasn't been equally egregious in their attack on global warming, but truth isn't determined by whoever shouts the loudest. If you have a radical assertion, that will require significant proof.
At a certain point, people stop listening.
-Styopa
Renewables work NOW and build up faster and are cheaper than nukes.
But let me ask this: if we move balls-out for nuclear, does that include Iran and North Korea? If not, then we can't use nuclear: you admit it is too dangerous.
Nuclear only starts producing when 100% complete. Wind and solar can work as soon as you get the first generator hooked to the grid.
We don't have time to wait for nuclear to be built, never mind the "next generation, totally safe, honest, and not like we said about last generation, really" nuclear to be perfected.
Nope, Phil said he'd prefer not to give McI the data. The data was mostly elsewhere. The rest wasn't his to give away. Yours was a total lie.
Your BS is also in effect with "They couldn't even "risk" a peer review", no such claim ANYWHERE is supported.
do we take creationists seriously?
do we take antivaxxers seriously?
do we take 9/11 truthers seriously?
denying climate change is the exact same order of blind ignorant faith over overwhelming facts
what the hell are you talking about? there is no middle ground. there is reality, and there is nothing else
there is magic middle ground between reality and propaganda or reality and wish fulfillment fantasy. i have to take such people seriously?
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but absolutely no one is entitled to their own magic facts
climate change is real and happening. there's no debate. there's no argument. either you accept that, and consider yourself someone who is in touch reality, or you deny that and be an idiot
an idiot: i'm not throwing around empty insults here. what else do you call someone who in their prideful ignorance rejects basic facts? someone who is a creationist for example and denies the established facts of evolution: this is a person i have to engage? no, this is a person who needs to be utterly rejected. they are not part of any reasonable debate. there is no help for them as they have substituted magic narrative for basic facts of reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And there, folks, is the attitude that The True Believers have towards anyone who questions their religion/hypothesis/politics, despite the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They definitely don't have the latter, so responses are as above or 'shut up' or 'fuck off' or...
You are confusing "extraordinary claims" with "extraordinary impacts". One is a scientific term, the other an economic term. The fact that CO2 will acidify the ocean is elementary school chemistry (my kid did a science fair project to demonstrate it in 5th grade). It really isn't rocket science. The impact on the ocean food chain is also very well documented (which is what the article is about), but it is not an extreme claim - it was predicted back in the mid 1800s and wasn't particularly controversial then.
To give a completely different example, an asteroid impact destroying civilisation is not a extraordinary claim if you have any familiarity with the fossil record and basic mechanics, but it would certainly have an extraordinary um impact.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
If science is correct and climate change is real and is being caused by humans, then doing something about it means everybody gets to live. If the climate change deniers are wrong, then everything dies.
Sorry but while I absolutely agree that we should take climate change seriously and do what we can to minimize the effect what you say is clearly not even vaguely correct. The Earth has been through natural climate change cycles in the past and all the species now on the planet have survived such changes.
What none of these dire predictions seem to take into account is that climate change should open up new areas where plants, coral reefs etc. can grow. 10,000 years ago the planet was in the grip of an ice age. Much of northern Europe and North America was underneath a giant ice sheet which melted. As the climate warmed the regions favourable for plants moved and species started growing in different areas as the climate changed. The problem with man-made climate change is that it might happen a lot faster than most natural change (except for volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes etc. which are even faster). Life has survived all of these disasters and it will survive man-made climate change as will we (unless we do something really stupid like start a nuclear war) but it might be very unpleasant.
What I would love to see is some sort of balanced, objective look at climate change. Hyped up articles like this that are clearly interested in pushing one point of view regardless of evidence convince nobody and risk a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people will ignore real warnings of problems due to climate change.
As a "working scientist', do you normally conspire to circumvent FOI requests.
Also while I'm sure gaming the peer review system is normal, that does not make it a good thing.
What you seem to not realize is that the mass extinction events of the past made extinct the most dominant species of the time (dinosaurs for example).
Only there are two flaws with that. First the dinosaurs did not go extinct and are still around today only smaller and with a different name: birds. Secondly we have one evolutionary advantage: intelligence. This lets us adapt far, far more rapidly to change than evolution and may even help reverse climate change: either by reducing our environmental impact or by geo-engineering.
Climate change is a concern but one that stops far short of the end of life on earth. It may cause massive disruption, a drop in the standard of living etc. but the extinction of all humans? That's an extraordinary claim without anything approaching extraordinary evidence to support it.
What utter crap.
Birds may or may not have evolved from dinosaurs, but that does not make them dinosaurs for any reasonable definition of bird or dinosaur. Perhaps you also think that whales are land mammals.
If there was not some significant event in the past there would be no reason for these small feathered derivatives to survive while the actual dinos died out. I get that it's fun for misinformed science teachers to throw in the erroneous "birds are dinosaurs" factoid along with "centrifugal force doesn't exist" and "glass is liquid" for wide-eyed students but let's leave it there. To state that a particular class of life has survived by pointing to a far-removed derivative is a cop out and adds nothing useful to discussions about extinction.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife