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. :-)
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.
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
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.
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.