21–30 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sorry but what a silly idea that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 an…
> "It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth"
I think you misrepresent. He's made it clear he's a journalist who made effort to understand and present the science. There were a few mistakes as notably pointed out by Mann. Hardly "choosing to stretch the truth".
Given the IPCC's consistently conservative view, that encourages a too little, too late response, I would rather an excessively pessimistic view pushed us to respond "too soon". After all if some tipping points are passed, bringing it back from the brink will be just about impossible... If we overreact we get clean energy sooner.
Events in the two years since seem to reinforce the pessimistic view. Sea level rise tracks the worst case IPCC estimates. Etc.
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.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah right, children, innocents and wildlife deserve an extinction event. Sorry but what a silly idea that is.
Now, thirty years later, the ability to measure and predict is much greater, such that science literature can put a finer point on things. Yet the overall pollution activity (minus the success of the ozone layer repletion, worse with single-use plastics) continues.
Like the therapist says, you own your reaction to this.. hard to dismiss...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah right, children, innocents and wildlife deserve an extinction event. Sorry but what a silly idea that is.
> 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…
[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.