Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#11

Post by ridewinter »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #9
jes5199 wrote: post #2

Are we doomed? It seems like we might be doomed

TL;DR: Yup, we're doomed. Read or listen to David Wallace-Wells' Uninhabitable Earth[1] and/or Jem Bendell's Deep Adaptation[2] and decide for yourself. Both a couple of years old, neither will leave you the slightest bit optimistic. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... [2] https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/

Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley). And it will be technology that saves us in the future.

Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain.

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#12

Post by geedy »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #9
jes5199 wrote: post #2

Are we doomed? It seems like we might be doomed

TL;DR: Yup, we're doomed. Read or listen to David Wallace-Wells' Uninhabitable Earth[1] and/or Jem Bendell's Deep Adaptation[2] and decide for yourself. Both a couple of years old, neither will leave you the slightest bit optimistic. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-... [2] https://jembendell.com/category/deep-adaptation/

David Wallace wells isn't your best source. His work has been criticized for misrepresenting the science by many reputable climate scientists, many of which are easy to find online. It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth.

Whether or not his tactic is ethical is worth debate perhaps, but whether his picture is reflective of what climate scientists believe is an answered question (its not). The situation is bad, but we need not become defeatist, lest we give up entirely.

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#13

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly »

geedy wrote: post #6

I am not associated with any of the following, but there are organizations attempting to build devices that will bring colder, nutrient rich waters to the surface to cause phytoplankton blooms (or use the same nutrients for seaweed farming): 1) ocean-based.com 2) http://www.climatefoundation.org/ We should of course do everything we can to stop emitting carbon. But projects like these may an important part in our fut…

I don't think it's the carbon dioxide that is killing the phytoplankton, they probably love it like most plants love a little extra CO2.

I imagine it's other chemicals like herbicides making their way into the oceans and killing the tiny plants.

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#14

Post by chiefalchemist »

> The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world's oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land.

So does this mean there's been a significant drop in oxygen (produced)? And if so, how much?

If 100% of phytoplankton produces 50% of the oxygen and 100% is now 60% that mean 50% of oxygen is down to 30%. In other words, sans a drop in non phytoplankton, total oxygen that was 100% is not 80%?

Wouldn't we feel that?

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#16

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly »

schainks wrote: post #5

Are there any teams trying to genetically engineer phytoplankton to deal with these changes in ocean conditions?

Who is going to pay them to do that extremely expensive work?

I really wish I never had to even think of that question, but it is a serious one.

Capitalism certainly has it's drawbacks...

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#17

Post by chiefalchemist »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #7
pygy_ wrote: post #4

[2010], here's the paper referenced in the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 I knew we had fucked up the oceans with plastics and overfishing, but I didn't know that phytoplankton was down as well, at such a scale. Per TFA, it provided 50% of the Earth's photosynthesis (in 2010). If it kept on dwindling that fast, that share is even lower now (down ~45%, with a half-life of 81 years, assuming the d…

I keep coming back to the idea that over fishing --> pulling micro nutrients from the ocean --> plankton collapse.

We take the good stuff out (i.e., fish) and dump garbage and pollutants back in. What could go wrong?

Humans fully deserve the next extinction event.

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#19

Post by rosybox »

ridewinter wrote: post #10
jes5199 wrote: post #2

Are we doomed? It seems like we might be doomed

No, we’ve been on the brink of annihilation many times and have found a way through. We cannot predict what new knowledge will be discovered to solve these problems. But we must keep trying.

When have we been on the brink of annihilation before?

Re: Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 (2010)

#20

Post by tedivm »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #14

> The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world's oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land. So does this mean there's been a significant drop in oxygen (produced)? And if so, how much? If 100% of phytoplankton produces 50% of the oxygen and 100% is now 60% that mean 50% of oxygen is down to 30%. In other words, sans a drop in non phytoplankton, tota…

That's oxygen produced, not oxygen total. Dropping to 80% yearly production isn't going to remove the already stockpiled oxygen in the system, so how quickly we notice is going to depend on how much oxygen is being "removed" from the system at the same time.

From a different paper-

> Oxygen concentrations are currently declining at roughly 19 per meg per year, or about 4 ppm per year. One "per meg" indicates one molecule out of 1,000,000 oxygen molecules, or roughly one molecule in 4.8 million molecules of air.

Post reply on HN