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.
hotter, higher, trashier
Are we sure they're not making predictions about the next generation of Kardashians? They're definitely anthropogenic. Maybe we could bury them under millions of black plastic balls .
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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!
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.
i'm so tired of doom and gloom. Can't scientists ever say nice things?
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.
I don't believe you. In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave. Is the data real or manipulated?
Face it we just do not have a friggin' clue as to what is actually going to happen as the climate swings wildly with an increased oscillation as the oceans heat up and the poles thaw out. Obviously the more energy you put into the ocean and atmosphere the more the currents will change in unpredictable ways. Like bad computer code with too many variables the possibilities are highly unpredictable.
For one it is entirely possible that increases in global temperatures causing forest fires across the boreal forest zone of the northern hemisphere will put enough particulate into the air that a mini ice age similar to a nuclear winter might happen. We cannot be certain about the outcomes of global warming. BUT we have some evidence that major events that put large amounts of particulate into the atmosphere in a short period of time can and do cause mini ice ages. One occurred in the early 18th century and it lasted about 15 years, caused wars over farm lands and minor starvation in Europe and the Russian Steps. The climate did suddenly become colder in a hurry after a number of large volcanic events, one of which occurred in the Western Canada, basically blocked the suns uv rays for over a year. So it is entirely possible that there is a natural reaction to over heating of the earths atmosphere and crust that can cause high altitude dust that puts a damper on the warming. Call it a pressure relief valve system that we just don't quite understand yet.
Either way if global warming continues the bread basket of the US is in trouble big time because of global warming. The Colorado river is about to experience incredible flooding as El Nino dumps winter monsoons on the Rockies without snow. Flooding can be as bad for the farm economy as drought and what is about to occur is landslides on a monumental scale all over the West Coast of North America.
Either way we are about to pay a terrible price for out ecological greed and stupidity. In a way the coming disasters will finally wake people up but the irony is as people wake up to what fossil fuels have done they very well might be on the verge of having to turn to them even more to save themselves from a mini ice age! The swings in climate will occur in both directions. Here is another sobering thought, the dust from automobile tires and paved road ways will be more than just a problem for aquatic life in drainage systems. I predict that tire dust and road dust in dry climate large cities will become the number one cause of respiratory illness and surpass even smoking in cities like Los Angeles as the number one cause of lung illnesses. Within a few years the smart people will wear dust masks all the time and live in filter air buildings, the poor will just continue to suffer and die in the streets as always. Our combined greed and stupidity will make the black hole of Calcutta look like paradise on earth!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
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 don't believe you.
Then you're an idiot.
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age,
Nope, never happened. Oooh I see you're confusing journalists in the popular press floundering around with actual science. Do you do that with computer stuff too, or do you only level your skepticism on things you truly don't understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
I don't believe you.
Your beliefs make no difference to reality. Are you hoping to fairy wish climate change away? - "timmy you can do it! you just have to believe!"
In the 70's it was going to be an ice age, now it is going to be a heat wave.
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.
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.
I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.
Is the data real or manipulated?
I once had a guy here claim that the measured rate of warming was insignificant and posted a link to woodfortrees to prove it. I went and looked. It turns out, he'd carefully selected a narrow band of measures along the equator (where the warming is the least) and excluded the temperate and polar zones to reduce the warming measures. In short he lied.
I pointed this out to him, and he disappeared. Yet I have seen, several times, the same link re-appear.
So: who is manipulating data?
-No, the sun isn't the reason for the seasons. The reason is the earths axial tilt. If there was no tilt, there would be no seasons.
-No, solar flares do not affect climate. They do affect 'space weather' and thus satellites and the upper atmosphere, but not our weather down on the surface.
-No, solar output is not responsible for the warming. If it were, we would be cooling right now, as the sun output has trended downward the last few decades.
-No, Al Gore didn't predict the Arctic would be ice free. He was quoting a study that had just been released at the time.*
-No, the models have not never been right. They have been right, and they're getting stronger over time.
-Your local weather forecasts for 2 weeks from now has squat to do with long term global trends and averages.
-NIPCC is a pile of bull manure written by nonscientists. It'd be like you trying to prove Einstein wrong, when you cant even get 2+2=? correct.
-If you want to know what the IPCC actually says, you should actually read it. It's available to the public after all.
*And just for S&G's: While completely ice-free wont happen for some time yet, the Arctic actually has already been functionally ice free somewhat ahead of their prediction , and shipping is already taking advantage of this, as well oil companies seeking to drill there, particularly during months of minimum extent.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Looks like we have two idiots!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just like decreasing ice-caps, sea-level rises, and increasingly chaotic weather. And threatening changes in major ocean currents .. like the atlantic conveyor belt (see e.g. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...).
And they could be mand-made to ... and in all probability are. Except in the US of course. There they're just "God hugging us closer".
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.
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.
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
The Permian-Triassic extinction event didn't just kill of 90% of all life. It killed of 90% of all species - that is, it killed off 100% of 90% of species. Of the remaining 10%, it killed off 99% of some species, 98% of others, and so on. It was frighteningly close to sterilizing the planet.
Humans do have the capability to actually do that - sterilize the planet. It's highly unlikely, but possible if the entire world economy were dedicated to that - and it could be, as a side effect, because of two important effects:
This means there will be a steadily growing number of people who are willing and able to do an increasing amount of damage in pursuit of their own goals, and if those goals result in hugely profitable corporations that can influence (or ignore) government policy throughout the world, extinction of all life could then become the main product of nearly all human activity. And humans are pretty good at accomplishing their goals.
To be fair, at some point the consequences will be obvious and the number of people willing to continue will fall. But that's as likely to be too late as not - see Rapa Nui (Easter Island) for what tends to happen then. And see Venus for how bad it could get.
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.
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). Guess what the most dominant species is today? Humans.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
If the ocean dies, everything dies. That's not hyperbole, it's reality.
Yes but my point is that there is no evidence provided that this will happen. If you look at one region of the ocean, throw in your climate change model and come up with a prediction that none of the species living there now will survive then you do not have enough evidence to conclude that all life in the oceans will die.
To conclude that all life in the ocean will die you need to also check to make sure that the new conditions are not favourable to other species which might not be present in that region at the moment but which might move there if the conditions changed. Hence my point: conditions have changed in the past and life has adapted to them, not by evolution but by relocating, if you do not factor this in then you cannot conclude that the oceans will die.
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.
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomorphic pressures. Some of these pressures are suppressing organisms whilst others flourish to the detriment of the oceans' biodiversity.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
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