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

Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#101

Post by j_baker »

gizmo686 wrote: post #55
Daishiman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen is that the rate of biodiversity drops drastically, and organisms that are simple and adaptable (like cockroaches, algae, jellyfich, certain classes of bacteria, small mammals, urban birds) adapt and thrive and consume the rest of the flora and fauna, and permanently adapt their environments making the situation extremely fragile for more complex and delicate birds and larger vertebrates. Also, the…

>organisms that are simple and adaptable I would be careful with the word simple. Adaptable is the important component, and that seems to be related more to being small and not particularly specialized. Simple sounds like a description of the amount of genetic data the species contains. It has been a while since I took biology, but if I recall correctly, even small and adaptable species have a lot of genetic data. Wh…

If adaptability (without simplicity) is the key component, that sounds like somewhat good news for humanity, us being a versatile type, and we can eat a lot of things for food. It's not quite clear to me that survival necessarily implies smallness.

Though I would imagine that a lot of humans would die in the process. It would make the black plague look like child's play.

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#102

Post by waps »

Aloisius wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

How credible a source is IPSO, the author of the report backing this story? From what I can tell it's a U.K. non-profit hosted by the Zoological Society of London [1], itself a U.K. non-profit [2]. Alex Rogers, IPSO's Scientific Director [1], is also a Professor in Conservation Biology at the University of Oxford [3]. Paper article is based on: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/Bijma-et-al-2013.pdf [1] http://en.wi…

Well ocean acidification is real and proven. At this point all we're arguing about is how many years we have left.

Actually since ocean acidification provides a chemical power source for protozoa, we probably only have a year or two before one of the species adapts and brings it back to it's previous level by harvesting the energy in it. That will allow one of those species to rapidly spread, which is exactly what we want in this case.

Trying to fix it using any kind of non-self-replicating technology is, imho, a non-starter.

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#103

Post by waps »

be-prepared wrote: post #87
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom. Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.

I think it's pretty clear your beliefs are stupid ;-)

I agree with him : your belief that it's possible for humans to keep our environment constant over significant time frames is what's ridiculous.

You're turning around the argument. He's not suggesting anything insane, you are.

You're defending Disney reality (poor little animals ! We must help !) against the idea of evolution (adapt or die ? Can't adapt by the thousands ? Too bad). Guess which one is going to win in the real world, irrespective of what the entire human species decides to do ?

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#106

Post by randomfool »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #30

The short-term scenario is not good, but from the little I know about aquatic biology/chemistry, it might not be as catastrophical as the article pictures it. Increased CO2 levels should just cause algae/cyanobacteria blooms, which will balance CO2/O2 levels back again and foster primary consumers (solving over-fishing as a bonus). Also, H2CO3 gets buffered by all the Ca/Mg content in the ocean, so I don't think it's…

I live in Seattle and in just the past few years, beaches which used to be absolutely covered in oysters are now barren because of acidification. And by covered, I mean you need a path through them to walk (they are sharp), and the most difficult thing when picking them was to pick up a single one rather than cluster. This was on the Hood canal for anyone in the area.

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/...

It absolutely amazed me how fast everything disappeared. It really shocked me.

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#107

Post by Demiurge »

waps wrote: post #100
Demiurge wrote: post #97

Is there any reason no one is talking about terraforming seriously yet? What kind of technologies can be used to draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere, how much would it cost to make a difference?

Basic thermodynamics can provide a lower limit : at least 9x more energy than was gained by burning it (except for oil burned in power plants, where it'd be 6-7x, but that's not much). That seems to mean that without massive expansions in nuclear power it's just not in the cards.

But like with nuclear power, we don't have to do all the work. We don't need to generate electricity and then run conventional a CO2 filter. Hypothetically, if we dump 1 trillion dollars into genetic engineering, why can't we design some biological chain reaction that would do all the work?

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#108

Post by saalweachter »

waps wrote: post #103
be-prepared wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear your beliefs are stupid ;-)

I agree with him : your belief that it's possible for humans to keep our environment constant over significant time frames is what's ridiculous. You're turning around the argument. He's not suggesting anything insane, you are. You're defending Disney reality (poor little animals ! We must help !) against the idea of evolution (adapt or die ? Can't adapt by the thousands ? Too bad). Guess which one is going to win in…

What do you consider "significant time frames"? 10 years, 1000 years, 100,000?

If human activity is destabilizing the environment (ie, we have burned an amount of carbon which is suspiciously congruent with the amount of excess carbon in the atmosphere/oceans) why is it unreasonable to expect human activities to provide a similar amount of stabilization, even if greater amounts exceed our grasp?

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#109

Post by ivoflipse »

waps wrote: post #102
Aloisius wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well ocean acidification is real and proven. At this point all we're arguing about is how many years we have left.

Actually since ocean acidification provides a chemical power source for protozoa, we probably only have a year or two before one of the species adapts and brings it back to it's previous level by harvesting the energy in it. That will allow one of those species to rapidly spread, which is exactly what we want in this case. Trying to fix it using any kind of non-self-replicating technology is, imho, a non-starter.

Unless its a species that ends up doing more harm than good. Like huge swarms of jellyfish.

Re: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

#110

Post by nrmilstein »

SCAQTony wrote: post #94

Let's presume it is all true. Gizmag quoted a study that 15-container ships (just 15) dole out the same amount of pollution as 760-million cars. (I shit you not): http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ God knows what coal and power plants produce but nonetheless, why does the IPSO and The Guardian have to scare the shit out of everyone instead of offering some sort of real, solution? If this is all true and…

Not all journalism or scientific reporting is about presenting solutions, and pointing out the problems (especially of this severity, if the article is to be believed) is an important step. Furthermore, as the article says, I don't think anyone knows the solution. Even if we drastically reduce carbon emissions, it probably won't help.

I often find an attitude of dismissal and disdain towards environmental reporting like this on Hacker News. I think it stems from how we're so used to the optimism and can-do attitude of Silicon Valley that it's hard to digest how we may have created a problem we can't solve. It feels better to think "oh, they're just not being innovative enough in their solutions" and present oneself as above the fray.

But the stark reality, if the science is to be believed, is that we're on the path towards major environmental changes in the foreseeable future, and as of right now, we don't have a solution.

Post reply on HN