Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climatologists: By 2100, the Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean

Posted by samzenpus on from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

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.

24 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. That's stupid by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno if it's the summary or the article that's trash, but wow. Terrible.

    1. Re:That's stupid by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know the history of Cuyahoga river but if its similar to the Thames then it was polluted by man until there were no fish and then man cleaned up the pollution it created and now the fish have come back.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:That's stupid by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:That's stupid by JimSadler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a huge problem. If there is no healthy place for the fish to exist there is no place for them to come back from. One river being polluted can be cured when other waterways exist to restock the river once cleaned up. But what is happening is a holocaust of near 100% efficiency. Before 1492 we had unimaginable fish stocks in the N. Atlantic. Now we have far less than 1% of what we had back then.

    4. Re:That's stupid by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:That's stupid by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard this argument before. Basically it goes like this: If the Christians are wrong, then no big deal, but if they're right, then we're all in trouble unless we believe in Jesus.

  2. This sounds more like ... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. The oceans have radically changed before ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The oceans have radically changed before ... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For those who don't read the article:

      “The level of CaCO3 saturation would decrease by 50 percent or more, and colder oceans would become corrosive to CaCO3 shells,” Taro said. Plus, the last time the oceans got this acidic this fast, 96 percent of marine life went extinct.

      Once it gets acidic enough the plankton are done for, and they compromise the base of the food chain in the ocean. Yanking that out kills just about everything else, save a handful of species like jellyfish. The many humans who depend on the ocean for food will also be troubled to say the least. 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.

      The science is rock solid and very simple, and the historical record leaves no room for misinterpretation. What CO2 we put into the air, ends up in the ocean, and we can project the acidity like clockwork merely using the record of the carbon we dump into the air each year. By 2100 it will already be too late; we need to begin addressing this before 2050, and in earnest. It is difficult, but not impossible with a rapid expansion in nuclear power, but no other source can scale fast enough.

      "Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way. If you are supporting anti-nuclear organizations like Friends of the Earth, Green Peace, or the Sierra Club, please think about just how foolish their priorities are before the challenges we face. Consider Ecomodernism for a perspective that values preserving the environment, rather than adhering to a rigid and ineffective ideology.

      Acidification, Climate & Energy is a talk given by Dr. Alex Cannara at TEAC7, and it outlines the staggering extent of the problem, and how we can begin to address it. Dr. Cannara has also given a number of other talks on the subject, and searching for "ocean acidification" on youtube will keep one busy for hours. Incidentally, addressing ocean acidification will also resolve global warming, particulate pollution, energy poverty, and population growth as welcome side effects. It all begins with rational energy policy though, and discarding the notion that we can afford to rule out our most powerful carbon-free energy source.

    2. Re:The oceans have radically changed before ... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " 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.

  4. Re:Don't worry! by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :-)

  5. Re:Don't worry! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

    The oceans are already measurably warmer and more acidic, you fucking idiot.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Slashdot Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Slashdot Paradox by jcupitt65 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Slashdot Paradox by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Slashdot Paradox by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Slashdot Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Slashdot Paradox by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      I agree, 'crying wolf' is a near-perfect way to ruin one's credibility.

      Hyperbole sells movies, not science. However, there's precious little hyperbole coming from the scientists themselves.

      The predictions you mention really are coming to pass. Jellies have hit their stride, they're filling the oceans. Polar bears really are dying out. Local weather systems really are making landfall with more energy than they used to. Arctic ice really is disappearing very quickly.

      I live in New Zealand. Like many tourists to our little country, I to have naughtily stood upon the tongue of the Franz Josef glacier. I did this in 2000 and it looks quite different only fifteen years later, judging by this Herald article.

      This is reality. That fact that it is not happening nearly as fast as we were led to believe by our hyperbolous media and silly disaster movies like '2012' should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  7. Re: Don't worry! by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, it ocean temps and acidity peaked half a billion years ago during the worst extinction event in the fossil record, 90+% of all ocean life was wiped out.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:Don't worry! by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Very disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:They Lie by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:They Lie by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  12. All Species have Already Survived Climate Change by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.