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

51–60 of 71 posts

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

#51

Post by philipkglass »

strainer wrote: post #47
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.

Good counterpoint. I upvoted you and radford-neal.

Having looked at both papers now, I think that the 2014 followup confirmed the direction of the trend (downward), but it looks like it also significantly reduced the magnitude of the trend.

Look at figure 2b in the 2010 paper and figure 1a in the 2014 paper. They both show "Rate of Chl change (mg m–3 yr–1)" on a grid of cells covering the world's oceans. But the scale in the 2010 paper went from -0.40 to 0.40. In the 2014 paper the extremes of the scale are only -0.10 and 0.10. It looks like re-analysis indicated less dramatic rates of change both in the cells showing increase and those showing decrease.

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

#52

Post by mirimir »

tedivm wrote: post #20
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 mole…

Total atmospheric oxygen is 195000 ppm, so 4 ppm isn't much. But if it's a consistent trend, it is a little concerning.

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

#53

Post by eklavyaa »

coincidentally I watched Our Planet High Seas episode today. They showed how crucial Phytoplankton is. No matter where you are in world the air you are breathing is somewhere coming from these microscopic plants. This fact made me stop and think even these tiny organisms contributing to make earth habitable, What we do as human beings ?

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

#54

Post by incompatible »

ridewinter wrote: post #45
incompatible wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] htt…

Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).

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

#55

Post by mikro2nd »

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…

Plastics and overfishing are the least of our worries (though not to be dismissed) -- we know how to stop those (though we might find the means to do so unpalatable).

The elephant in the room (whale in the fish pond?) is ocean acidification which will continue to increase for at least a century or so even if we stop using any and all fossil fuels immediately (and how likely does that look?)

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

#57

Post by coldtea »

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.

>Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part.

Which is neither here nor there. We care for the part where its habitable and we're on it, not for the part when it was molten lava...

>It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley)

Not really, we've lived in most of the places we live now and had civilizations 2000 and 5000 and 10000 years ago. And animals more or less like us lived there far more.

Technology like fire, stone and iron tools helped made things more palatable, but it's not "only technology" that allows us to live in Africa (heck, tons of tribes lived there even 50-100 years ago with little/no technology), Asia, Europe, etc, and in no way it's only modern technology.

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

Perhaps people care more for scientific claims and concrete technologies, and less for magic thinking and faith, which "technological optimism" is, as if we have some certain contract with the universe to find just the right technologies, in the right time, to save us...

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

#58

Post by coldtea »

ridewinter wrote: post #45
incompatible wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] htt…

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

If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic.

It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs.

Soberly speaking:

- We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future".

- If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable.

- A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites...

- A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on).

All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us...

>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].

LOL.

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

#59

Post by ridewinter »

coldtea wrote: post #58
ridewinter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] htt…

> The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that…

Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future.

You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change.

Overpopulation prophesy from 50 years ago. At the time 1 in 4 people globally were in famine and author prophecized it would only get worse. Instead global population has doubled while worldwide hunger reduced to 1 in 10, due to creativity and technology. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world...

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

#60

Post by pvaldes »

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.

Plankton is collapsing all the time in fact. Then they recover extremely fast.
Post reply on HN