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.
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.
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.
The oceans are already measurably warmer and more acidic, you fucking idiot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.