6 ms·

Posting from a throwaway because politics. Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some speci

Posting from a throwaway because politics. Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on. I see it as more of a change that's not really bad or good. As Joe Carlin once said, the Earth will be fine. Here is the clip: https://youtu.be/EjmtSkl53h4 https://youtu.be/EjmtSkl53h4

bamboozled 9y ago
All levels of the food chain need to be healthy for the bigger fish to survive, no oxygen means no bait fish. Ice levels will be irrelevant.
mapcars 9y ago
Are you serious in quoting a comic guy regarding such a big thing? I mean his goal is to entertain people and not to bring you an expert opinion.
dpwm 9y ago
The adaptations you're talking about happen over centuries. The changes you're talking about are happening over decades. These changes will not be limited to just the oceans. And the main takeaway point from that George Carlin clip that I can find is that the planet will be fine because people won't be. I can only assume you didn't bother to watch it before posting it for others to watch.
- throwaway9990 9y ago
  Adaptations can happen within a decade. Look into radiotrophic fungi near Chernobyl.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Fungi are not a very good example of such adaptability when you are mainly talking about vertebrates.
    - throwaway9990 9y ago
      http://nationalpost.com/news/world/proof-of-evolution-birds-grow-larger-beaks-in-less-than-a-decade http://nationalpost.com/news/world/proof-of-evolution-birds-...
  - dpwm 9y ago
    The adaptations you are talking about were in fungi, in the presence of radiation which didn't kill them. This is in comparison to fish, in which adaptations take a longer time, where the decrease in oxygen is a direct threat to life.
    - throwaway9990 9y ago
      It has to be a threat to life. Otherwise, no fungi that had potential for such energy consumption would have been selected for. Same with fish or birds. With fish, the ones that can live in a slightly lower O2 environment will be selected for and survive better than the ones who can't. Those that can't would die off because they won't be able to compete as well. This adaptation can happen within a decade.
jacquesm 9y ago
It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II. Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and all our hydroponics tech won't save us if we don't have oxygen in the air to live off. Keep in mind that the atmospheric oxygen is there to a very large extent because the oceans act as the planet's lungs. Lower oxygen in the oceans means less life in the oceans and ultimately less oxygen in the atmosphere, which affects all life on earth, including us. So unless you feel a planet with mostly just plant and insect life is 'fine' you probably need to review that piece a couple of times to get the real impact of it, in which Carlin's prediction is that we won't make it.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  > as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    The key is extremely. As an example, DDT sprayed to get rid of certain insects killed off a large number of birds at the top of the food chain, such trouble tends to concentrate. So poison the lower levels and the intermediate levels might survive but the apex species will suffer the most.
    - mehrdadn 9y ago
      Oh, if you're referring to biological magnification then yes, but that's not the problem we're talking about, right? We're talking about global warming, which leads to species dying off (due to habitat loss, etc.) rather than staying alive but accumulating toxins... that's where I don't get how things would be any different if we were lower in the food chain?
czechdeveloper 9y ago
This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?
- throwaway9990 9y ago
  Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine. I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Earth is fine But dinosaurs clearly are not. > I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. What you think is not so important. What the worlds scientists specialising in that field think is important. If you feel that short of nuclear global destruction our impact is negligible then that contradicts just about all peer reviewed research. > If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place. That does not align with my understanding of the word 'fine', but seems to imply a rather apocalyptic ending for the human race, something that we might do better to avoid.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The point is, nobody really gives a damn about Earth itself, and why should we? It's a rock. What we care about is us, humans. When we say "save the planet", what we mean is "save the ecosystem that's letting us live here, and enjoy that life". If we break things and die as a result, sure, something else will live. But we don't care about that something else, we care about us. It's a stupid shorthand, but for some reason people appreciate the fake humility of saying it's about Earth, not about us.
  - worldsayshi 9y ago
chiefalchemist 9y ago
George Carlin is an expert on ecology? You're betting our future on the standup bit of a comedian? You're funnier than Carlin. Congratulations.
mikeash 9y ago
Of course the Earth will be fine. The issue is about human civilization.
woodandsteel 9y ago
Due to the Earth being a sphere, the arctic is much smaller in area than the tropical oceans, so I assume it could have a lot fewer fish.

bamboozled 9y ago

All levels of the food chain need to be healthy for the bigger fish to survive, no oxygen means no bait fish. Ice levels will be irrelevant.

mapcars 9y ago

Are you serious in quoting a comic guy regarding such a big thing? I mean his goal is to entertain people and not to bring you an expert opinion.

dpwm 9y ago

The adaptations you're talking about happen over centuries. The changes you're talking about are happening over decades. These changes will not be limited to just the oceans. And the main takeaway point from that George Carlin clip that I can find is that the planet will be fine because people won't be. I can only assume you didn't bother to watch it before posting it for others to watch.

throwaway9990 9y ago
Adaptations can happen within a decade. Look into radiotrophic fungi near Chernobyl.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Fungi are not a very good example of such adaptability when you are mainly talking about vertebrates.
  - throwaway9990 9y ago
    http://nationalpost.com/news/world/proof-of-evolution-birds-grow-larger-beaks-in-less-than-a-decade http://nationalpost.com/news/world/proof-of-evolution-birds-...
- dpwm 9y ago
  The adaptations you are talking about were in fungi, in the presence of radiation which didn't kill them. This is in comparison to fish, in which adaptations take a longer time, where the decrease in oxygen is a direct threat to life.
  - throwaway9990 9y ago
    It has to be a threat to life. Otherwise, no fungi that had potential for such energy consumption would have been selected for. Same with fish or birds. With fish, the ones that can live in a slightly lower O2 environment will be selected for and survive better than the ones who can't. Those that can't would die off because they won't be able to compete as well. This adaptation can happen within a decade.

jacquesm 9y ago

It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II. Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and all our hydroponics tech won't save us if we don't have oxygen in the air to live off. Keep in mind that the atmospheric oxygen is there to a very large extent because the oceans act as the planet's lungs. Lower oxygen in the oceans means less life in the oceans and ultimately less oxygen in the atmosphere, which affects all life on earth, including us. So unless you feel a planet with mostly just plant and insect life is 'fine' you probably need to review that piece a couple of times to get the real impact of it, in which Carlin's prediction is that we won't make it.

mehrdadn 9y ago
> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  The key is extremely. As an example, DDT sprayed to get rid of certain insects killed off a large number of birds at the top of the food chain, such trouble tends to concentrate. So poison the lower levels and the intermediate levels might survive but the apex species will suffer the most.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    Oh, if you're referring to biological magnification then yes, but that's not the problem we're talking about, right? We're talking about global warming, which leads to species dying off (due to habitat loss, etc.) rather than staying alive but accumulating toxins... that's where I don't get how things would be any different if we were lower in the food chain?

czechdeveloper 9y ago

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

throwaway9990 9y ago
Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine. I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Earth is fine But dinosaurs clearly are not. > I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. What you think is not so important. What the worlds scientists specialising in that field think is important. If you feel that short of nuclear global destruction our impact is negligible then that contradicts just about all peer reviewed research. > If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place. That does not align with my understanding of the word 'fine', but seems to imply a rather apocalyptic ending for the human race, something that we might do better to avoid.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The point is, nobody really gives a damn about Earth itself, and why should we? It's a rock. What we care about is us, humans. When we say "save the planet", what we mean is "save the ecosystem that's letting us live here, and enjoy that life". If we break things and die as a result, sure, something else will live. But we don't care about that something else, we care about us. It's a stupid shorthand, but for some reason people appreciate the fake humility of saying it's about Earth, not about us.
- worldsayshi 9y ago

chiefalchemist 9y ago

George Carlin is an expert on ecology? You're betting our future on the standup bit of a comedian? You're funnier than Carlin. Congratulations.

mikeash 9y ago

Of course the Earth will be fine. The issue is about human civilization.

woodandsteel 9y ago

Due to the Earth being a sphere, the arctic is much smaller in area than the tropical oceans, so I assume it could have a lot fewer fish.