4 ms·

It’s obviously horrible, but it also means that it will allow other creatures to grow to fill that space. It’s like a forest fire. Sure the devastation is bad b

It’s obviously horrible, but it also means that it will allow other creatures to grow to fill that space. It’s like a forest fire. Sure the devastation is bad but there’s also renewal afterwards. It’s not like it will remain barren forever.

magneticnorth 5y ago
The difference is that the local ecosystem has evolved for forest fires; this is a massively destabilizing event where we can't predict what the "renewal" will look like and what species will go extinct in the meantime, or how polluted the water will end up being "normally" without the mussel population to keep things in check. And I don't think the article is implying that the oceans will be barren forever, but that things are changing rapidly, unpredictably, and to an extreme degree that we have no precedent for.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
A forest fire kills the adults but retains the young (seeds). This just killed everything. There’s no comparison.
dyeje 5y ago
How fast do these creatures reproduce? Are they going to generate billions in between now and the next hot season? How many more will die this hot season? Will even more die next hot season?
- plank_time 5y ago
  It’s not “hot season”. It was a historically abnormal heat wave. I lived in Vancouver. You don’t normally see temperatures like that. It doesn’t have to reproduce right away, that’s just unrealistic. But the larger amounts of free space will mean a land grab by the survivors. That’s how it works in nature. If the climate changes and the water heats up then the ecosystem will be replaced by those animals that would survive in warmer water. That’s science.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Its also called "ecological collapse" when a place has catastrophic dieoff. It can take decades to recover, even with species that can survive in the new conditions. (Meanwhile poor humans are trying to grow crops and raise animals. We may get very hungry, for decades)
  - nautilius 5y ago
    Yeah, the sun and Venus for example are overrun with life because there’s essentially no competition. That’s just science!
    - eloff 5y ago
      That's a dumb example, there's no life in those environments. You could look to the intertidal regions near the equator for more reasonable comparison. They are much less rich in life compared to the waters around Vancouver.
      - nautilius 5y ago
        Ah really, there’s no life on the sun? Hey, come to think of it — that was my point exactly!
        eloff 5y ago
        Your point is pointless. Life doesn't expand to take advantage of new resources in environments where there is no life. First you need life.
        nautilius 5y ago
        Ah, that final newly added sentence turns your post into something that finally makes any sense at all and no longer contradicts GP’s point that I am arguing. The point others and I are making is that life does not expand arbitrarily, or in a weaker form, the life that may expand will be a much less desirable environment for us humans than the present. Even though you deny it, we can very simply create environments, right here on earth, where life as we know it will not be possible. Look into an operating steel smelter for example, just to remove any subtlety and ambiguity. Sure, maybe ‘Science’ can replace all of our biosphere with extremophiles, but I for one do not desire to live in such a world. I like trees and birds and mammals and lizards and (you get the point).
ji0 5y ago
How comforting to know things will regenerate after we die off from our own stupidity.
- mellavora 5y ago
  I fear that much of the poison we leave behind, and the extinction of so much biodiversity, will make such regeneration much slower than it would otherwise need to be. My greatest fear -- I've seen individual animals loose the will to live. What if a biotope loses the will? What if life decides not to come back?
steve_adams_86 5y ago
It’s not that simple. As the article mentions, if weather continues to warm and these events become more common, we could end up with seasonal die outs of intertidal species. It’s not immediately evident from that statement, but that would completely transform the biodiversity of the coastline. Currently it’s one of vast abundance, but this transformation would very likely reduce that abundance and its diversity due to a foundation of the food chain disappearing regularly. It’s nice to think something would just replace these species, but they’ve already reduced dramatically over the last 100 years and nothing has begun to shoehorn its way into the system. It seems the worse this gets, the less overall abundance and diversity this coastline can support.
- plank_time 5y ago
  If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science. There are creatures around the world that thrive in warmer waters. The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science. • Science is a way of finding out about the world, not a list of facts. • No, actually. Rather, these creatures will die and we might lose entire species, significantly reducing biodiversity. > The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science. On an evolutionary timescale, something will fill the niche (if the environment remains constant enough for long enough… not looking likely, if you extrapolate from today), but science most certainly hasn't found that this happens with animals over the course of decades. And you know what they say about basic biology…
    - plank_time 5y ago
      Your understanding of “science” is absurd. Yes, those creatures that died will be dead. When the environment changes and creatures are selected against, they will die out. This is called the Theory of Natural Selection. Does it suck that it’s happening in situations like this heat wave? Yes. Should we do whatever we can to stop our contribution to this? Absolutely. Should we expect that it never should happen? No, otherwise dinosaurs would be roaming the Earth right now. There have been around 20 mass extinction events in the last 500M years. Are we causing the next mass extinction event? Probably. Will we be the cause of life to end on Earth? No. Even plastic breaks down and nuclear waste becomes harmless over a geological timeline. Again, your understanding is pretty basic. Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing. To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science. Life will thrive. Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.

magneticnorth 5y ago

The difference is that the local ecosystem has evolved for forest fires; this is a massively destabilizing event where we can't predict what the "renewal" will look like and what species will go extinct in the meantime, or how polluted the water will end up being "normally" without the mussel population to keep things in check. And I don't think the article is implying that the oceans will be barren forever, but that things are changing rapidly, unpredictably, and to an extreme degree that we have no precedent for.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

A forest fire kills the adults but retains the young (seeds). This just killed everything. There’s no comparison.

dyeje 5y ago

How fast do these creatures reproduce? Are they going to generate billions in between now and the next hot season? How many more will die this hot season? Will even more die next hot season?

plank_time 5y ago
It’s not “hot season”. It was a historically abnormal heat wave. I lived in Vancouver. You don’t normally see temperatures like that. It doesn’t have to reproduce right away, that’s just unrealistic. But the larger amounts of free space will mean a land grab by the survivors. That’s how it works in nature. If the climate changes and the water heats up then the ecosystem will be replaced by those animals that would survive in warmer water. That’s science.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Its also called "ecological collapse" when a place has catastrophic dieoff. It can take decades to recover, even with species that can survive in the new conditions. (Meanwhile poor humans are trying to grow crops and raise animals. We may get very hungry, for decades)
- nautilius 5y ago
  Yeah, the sun and Venus for example are overrun with life because there’s essentially no competition. That’s just science!
  - eloff 5y ago
    That's a dumb example, there's no life in those environments. You could look to the intertidal regions near the equator for more reasonable comparison. They are much less rich in life compared to the waters around Vancouver.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      Ah really, there’s no life on the sun? Hey, come to think of it — that was my point exactly!
      - eloff 5y ago
        Your point is pointless. Life doesn't expand to take advantage of new resources in environments where there is no life. First you need life.
        nautilius 5y ago
        Ah, that final newly added sentence turns your post into something that finally makes any sense at all and no longer contradicts GP’s point that I am arguing. The point others and I are making is that life does not expand arbitrarily, or in a weaker form, the life that may expand will be a much less desirable environment for us humans than the present. Even though you deny it, we can very simply create environments, right here on earth, where life as we know it will not be possible. Look into an operating steel smelter for example, just to remove any subtlety and ambiguity. Sure, maybe ‘Science’ can replace all of our biosphere with extremophiles, but I for one do not desire to live in such a world. I like trees and birds and mammals and lizards and (you get the point).

ji0 5y ago

How comforting to know things will regenerate after we die off from our own stupidity.

mellavora 5y ago
I fear that much of the poison we leave behind, and the extinction of so much biodiversity, will make such regeneration much slower than it would otherwise need to be. My greatest fear -- I've seen individual animals loose the will to live. What if a biotope loses the will? What if life decides not to come back?

steve_adams_86 5y ago

It’s not that simple. As the article mentions, if weather continues to warm and these events become more common, we could end up with seasonal die outs of intertidal species. It’s not immediately evident from that statement, but that would completely transform the biodiversity of the coastline. Currently it’s one of vast abundance, but this transformation would very likely reduce that abundance and its diversity due to a foundation of the food chain disappearing regularly. It’s nice to think something would just replace these species, but they’ve already reduced dramatically over the last 100 years and nothing has begun to shoehorn its way into the system. It seems the worse this gets, the less overall abundance and diversity this coastline can support.

plank_time 5y ago
If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science. There are creatures around the world that thrive in warmer waters. The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science. • Science is a way of finding out about the world, not a list of facts. • No, actually. Rather, these creatures will die and we might lose entire species, significantly reducing biodiversity. > The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science. On an evolutionary timescale, something will fill the niche (if the environment remains constant enough for long enough… not looking likely, if you extrapolate from today), but science most certainly hasn't found that this happens with animals over the course of decades. And you know what they say about basic biology…
  - plank_time 5y ago
    Your understanding of “science” is absurd. Yes, those creatures that died will be dead. When the environment changes and creatures are selected against, they will die out. This is called the Theory of Natural Selection. Does it suck that it’s happening in situations like this heat wave? Yes. Should we do whatever we can to stop our contribution to this? Absolutely. Should we expect that it never should happen? No, otherwise dinosaurs would be roaming the Earth right now. There have been around 20 mass extinction events in the last 500M years. Are we causing the next mass extinction event? Probably. Will we be the cause of life to end on Earth? No. Even plastic breaks down and nuclear waste becomes harmless over a geological timeline. Again, your understanding is pretty basic. Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing. To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science. Life will thrive. Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.