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.
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".
Even Ted Danson predicted that the Oceans would be dead in the 1990's (dead before 2000). https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Can the folks who predicted this latest disaster be held accountable?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Slashdot is normally science-aligned. But I am surprised at how Slashdotters suddenly seem to become something akin to flat-earthers when it comes to *scientific consensus* on climate change. I don't recall this community always being like this.
" This really isn't an academic matter about what is normal or changing; this issue is both more urgent and far more serious than any expected effects of global warming."
It gets worse than that. Plankton generate 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere and equally are responsible for extracting huge amounts of CO2.
But, changes that people really don't like tend to bring about a response. The Cuyahoga river for example was so toxic that it was completely devoid of fish, and the water itself was flammable, whereas now some 44 species inhabit it.
So, wait, you're saying that humans caused the river to become toxic and flammable and then managed to fix it and that somehow precludes that humans can't cause the oceans to become acidic and/or toxic?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
I cite that just because its funny and underscores what is going on.
You have some people saying reasonable things and talking about the science. And then you have dumb journalists running around like chickens with their heads cut off... collecting the most extreme quotes they possibly can to get the most insane headlines.
I'm not interested in the alarmism and I'm not alone. Millions are just tuning it out. I think that political tactic and media tactic has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Moving forward, I'd just like the science... with full acknowledgment of the uncertainties and no attempt to advocate for any given solution.
Just give me the information. Bias the results to try and get a panic reaction out of me and there's a good chance I'll spot it and then rather than convince me, I'll just distrust your paper.
I'm not anti environmental improvement. However, I'd like that improvement to be more than a ploy. There are a lot of alterior motives in this issue at this point.
1. The politicians can use it as a weapon. Al Gore didn't get into this for nothing.
2. The corporations love it because they get massive pork spending for green projects. The money going to GE etc for this stuff was unheard of before the AGW issue.
3. The Universities get too much grant money to not want to keep the fire burning on this issue. The issue cools and the grant money falls off with it.
4. The UN sees the issue as a means to political relevance outside the security council.
5. Various little countries can use the issue to justify demands for aid. The "help us because of colonialism" etc has sort of worn off. Help us because AGW is relevant.
6. The AGW issue can be used to justify protectionist policies against East Asian economies in China and India.
It goes on and on and on and on and on. So... I just want the science without the politics and the advocacy and the lobbying and the gaslighting and the endless fucking pathos.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Man's 3% of emissions seems to matter more than nature's 97%. Anyone who believes the climate change crap is not using their brain.
When the 97% of nature is in balance, then the 3% of mankind's emissions will be enough to put it out of balance.
It seems that someone doesn't understand how an equilibrium works. You can use your brain and still be wrong if you don't understand the problem in the first place.
Moreover, the anthropogenic nature of the changes (or not) is irrelevant. Other than providing clues for how to counter the changes, the source of the changes doesn't matter. If we don't do something about them, it's gonna suck. It's also important that we realize that our options for "doing something" are not limited to merely trying to limit our contribution to change. We can also act to directly oppose or reverse the change.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is only true if it's an unstable equilibrium. There's ample evidence it is not; the fact that the planet has gone in and out of ice ages and warm periods and returned to status quo ante after large impactors and eruptions indicates the equilibrium is quite stable.