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

41–50 of 71 posts

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

#41

Post by incompatible »

ridewinter wrote: post #11
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #9

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/

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.

Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.

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

#42

Post by geedy »

hanniabu wrote: post #32
geedy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> being called too alarmist I've never heard of any of his material, but is it really possibly to be too alarmist in our current state? I mean honestly, most of the world doesn't understands the magnitude and gravity of the events taking place and the runaway train that we're on.

If we take on defeatist language, we will be defeated. Scaring people into inaction by accepting defeat isn't a productive path forward.

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

#43

Post by radford-neal »

The referenced paper is from 2010. Do you suppose that the reason you haven't been hearing more about this recently is that it's just wrong?

In 2011, this comment disputing it was published:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950

The paper was discussed on HN earlier, as part of the discussion of

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127911

I have a comment there pointing out that if you actually look at the data in the paper, there is really no evidence of a decline.

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

#44

Post by _2d30 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #27
bamboozled wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah right, children, innocents and wildlife deserve an extinction event. Sorry but what a silly idea that is.

Odd and ironic that you're accusing me of neglecting children, innocents and wildlife. I'm not making the news. I'm only reporting it. Why not turn your anger and disgust on those that deserve it. That's not me.

[flagged]

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

#45

Post by ridewinter »

incompatible wrote: post #41
ridewinter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.

Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so.

The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress.

We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3].

[1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...

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

#46

Post by tedivm »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #13
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.

A little extra CO2 sure, but the rising CO2 in the oceans is actually changing the PH balance.

https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-...

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

#47

Post by strainer »

radford-neal wrote: post #43

The referenced paper is from 2010. Do you suppose that the reason you haven't been hearing more about this recently is that it's just wrong? In 2011, this comment disputing it was published: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950 The paper was discussed on HN earlier, as part of the discussion of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127911 I have a comment there pointing out that if you actually look at the da…

The authors of the 2010 paper did follow up with another in 2014[1] so "heard nothing since disputed in 2011 - its just wrong" is at least, inaccurate.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111...

>This work builds upon an earlier analysis (Boyce et al., 2010) by taking published criticisms into account, and by using recalibrated data, and novel analysis methods.

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

#48

Post by petre »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #13
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.

It's the temperature, not the CO2. I have fresh water shrimp and some fish. If you raise the temperature over 30°C, less oxygen dissolves into the water and there's not enough for the critters to breathe. It's basically asphyxiation. Labyrinth fish are adapted, since they can breathe air as well, but they do it merely for survival, they too become stressed and die after a while. Also some types of algae grow faster when the water is warmer. More algae = more O2 uptake during daytime.

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

#49

Post by JoeSamoa »

hanniabu wrote: post #29
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 pretty amazing, so in essence losing 40% of the phyloplankton is like us losing 50% of all trees over the last 50 years without even realizing it.

Alot more is going to happen without us realizing it unless we take action fast...

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/1/316

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

#50

Post by sieabahlpark »

radford-neal wrote: post #43

The referenced paper is from 2010. Do you suppose that the reason you haven't been hearing more about this recently is that it's just wrong? In 2011, this comment disputing it was published: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950 The paper was discussed on HN earlier, as part of the discussion of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127911 I have a comment there pointing out that if you actually look at the da…

HN seems to more and more turn into Reddit when it comes to upvoting articles people only read the headlines for.
Post reply on HN