4 ms·

Like many things climate related there is a significant lag-time, in human terms. As stated in the article the implication is that if humanity survives the clim

Like many things climate related there is a significant lag-time, in human terms. As stated in the article the implication is that if humanity survives the climate crisis it could take centuries to undo the damage to the oceans. However it is much more likely acidification will cause a trophic collapse and kill off the sea life before that were to occur- we have already lost around half of the base of our aquatic food chain, phytoplankton, since 1950: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ocean-phytoplankton-zooplankton-food-web-1.4927884 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ocean-p... There are widespread problems with sea birds dying of vitamin B1 deficiency, for which phytoplankton are a source, indicating this collapse is already in motion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196476/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196476/

radford-neal 8y ago
You need to read things more critically. Ask yourself, "can it really be true that total ocean phytoplankton have declined by 50%"? If it were true, what else would be true? It's the base of the food chain. One would see huge effects everywhere in the oceans. It's inconceivable that this would be reported just in some minor CBC news report. It's got to be that (at most) there's just a local decline in some spot off Newfoundland. You've also grossly mis-read the article on vitamin B1 deficiency. And, you ask "if humanity survives the climate crisis"? There is no prospect that the "climate crisis" will lead to human extinction. (Humans might manage to go extinct for some other reason, like an out-of-control bioweapon, but not for a reason closely linked to climate change.) You have been paying too much attention to quasi-religious apocalyptic propaganda.
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  I was looking for a citation that was not paywalled- here is a Nature study that corroborates my claim that we have lost around half of the phytoplankton since 1950: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 If this is true I would expect the populations of sea birds and sea life to plunge, which they have. The WWF published a report in 2015 that showed that marine vertebrates have declined by 49% from 1970 to 2012: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-blue-planet-report-2015 https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-blue-plane... I'm not sure how I misread the vitamin B1 article, phytoplankton is cited as a potential cause of the problem several times in the section 'A Sea of Possibilities'. There is also plenty of cause for concern about human extinction- between the insect die off and the marine die off it is unclear how we will be able to produce food going forward.
  - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
    The thing I have trouble understanding is this.... How can the same people be worried about human extinction as a result of environmental collapse, also think we might be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars. I agree that climate change is a huge problem and could result in horrific loss of life and a world wide traumatic event like we have never seen before. But there is no way that global warming will make this planet LESS hospitable than Mars could be possibly be in the next 200 years.
    - torpfactory 8y ago
      I think the technologies developed to make a mars habitat possible we end up also being useful for making some parts of a future earth habitable. That's a coincidence I hope doesn't come true. Personally, I think every billion destined for mars exploration is money not being spend on addressing the more pressing crisis: What about the health of our current planet. Mars can wait, so to speak, for us to ensure our survival here on earth. A mars colony probably wouldn't survive a collapse of earth-based civilization.
    - jacobtwotwo 8y ago
      > How can the same people be worried about human extinction as a result of environmental collapse, also think we might be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars. We would control the size and direction of growth on a colony. As it stands the tradoffs we make with regard to earth's climate affect 7.5+Bn people. A colony can be planned/optimized before we get there. We don't need to terraform the entirety of mars to get a small colony. If you want to have mars rival earth, then we can start talking about the scales of comparison you're making.
    - makerofspoons 8y ago
      I don't believe we will be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars, at least not with present technology. Every attempt we have made to build a self-sustaining ecosystem, such as Biosphere 2, has failed. Eerily when Biosphere 2 collapsed the insects died first, which is exactly what we are observing now globally.

radford-neal 8y ago

You need to read things more critically. Ask yourself, "can it really be true that total ocean phytoplankton have declined by 50%"? If it were true, what else would be true? It's the base of the food chain. One would see huge effects everywhere in the oceans. It's inconceivable that this would be reported just in some minor CBC news report. It's got to be that (at most) there's just a local decline in some spot off Newfoundland. You've also grossly mis-read the article on vitamin B1 deficiency. And, you ask "if humanity survives the climate crisis"? There is no prospect that the "climate crisis" will lead to human extinction. (Humans might manage to go extinct for some other reason, like an out-of-control bioweapon, but not for a reason closely linked to climate change.) You have been paying too much attention to quasi-religious apocalyptic propaganda.

makerofspoons 8y ago
I was looking for a citation that was not paywalled- here is a Nature study that corroborates my claim that we have lost around half of the phytoplankton since 1950: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 If this is true I would expect the populations of sea birds and sea life to plunge, which they have. The WWF published a report in 2015 that showed that marine vertebrates have declined by 49% from 1970 to 2012: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-blue-planet-report-2015 https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-blue-plane... I'm not sure how I misread the vitamin B1 article, phytoplankton is cited as a potential cause of the problem several times in the section 'A Sea of Possibilities'. There is also plenty of cause for concern about human extinction- between the insect die off and the marine die off it is unclear how we will be able to produce food going forward.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  The thing I have trouble understanding is this.... How can the same people be worried about human extinction as a result of environmental collapse, also think we might be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars. I agree that climate change is a huge problem and could result in horrific loss of life and a world wide traumatic event like we have never seen before. But there is no way that global warming will make this planet LESS hospitable than Mars could be possibly be in the next 200 years.
  - torpfactory 8y ago
    I think the technologies developed to make a mars habitat possible we end up also being useful for making some parts of a future earth habitable. That's a coincidence I hope doesn't come true. Personally, I think every billion destined for mars exploration is money not being spend on addressing the more pressing crisis: What about the health of our current planet. Mars can wait, so to speak, for us to ensure our survival here on earth. A mars colony probably wouldn't survive a collapse of earth-based civilization.
  - jacobtwotwo 8y ago
    > How can the same people be worried about human extinction as a result of environmental collapse, also think we might be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars. We would control the size and direction of growth on a colony. As it stands the tradoffs we make with regard to earth's climate affect 7.5+Bn people. A colony can be planned/optimized before we get there. We don't need to terraform the entirety of mars to get a small colony. If you want to have mars rival earth, then we can start talking about the scales of comparison you're making.
  - makerofspoons 8y ago
    I don't believe we will be able to develop a sustainable colony on Mars, at least not with present technology. Every attempt we have made to build a self-sustaining ecosystem, such as Biosphere 2, has failed. Eerily when Biosphere 2 collapsed the insects died first, which is exactly what we are observing now globally.