5 ms·

This is absolute garbage. Saying the plankton are gone is incredibly unlikely and requires extraordinary evidence. We can see plankton from space https://eoimag

This is absolute garbage. Saying the plankton are gone is incredibly unlikely and requires extraordinary evidence. We can see plankton from space https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/MY1DMM_CHLORA/MY1DMM_CHLORA_2002-07.JPEG https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/MY1DMM... and what we see in no way correlates with “the plankton is all gone”.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
The article reports that 90% of plankton is gone, not "the plankton are gone". Additionally, it seems that this is a correction of an earlier estimate according to which 50% of the plankton should be gone by now: >> The landmark research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals in the water. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished. Even if this correction is an overestimate, and the old estimate was right, the quantities of plankton halving since 1940 is still a disturbingly high amount of reduction. As to seeing plankton from space that doesn't really say anything unless we know what proportion of the plankton that exists is visible from space. For instance, it might not be possible to estimate total plankton quantities just from looking at a picture with a particular "bloom" concentrated in an area. I'm surprised about these numbers also but I don't know how I could easily trash the research reported, just because I've seen pictures of plankton. I think that's just making an overgeneralisation.
myshpa 4y ago
Yes, the article is bad. But lets not discredit the findings. Even if it's 90% in 2045, and if 1% of plankton dies every year (https://www.goesfoundation.com/ https://www.goesfoundation.com/), it means we've lost so far 70% of plankton since 1940. It still seems like a reason to be worried, and not to say "it's absolute garbage => everything's ok, no reason to be concerned".
fnordpiglet 4y ago
You know that image was from 2002 right?
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Here's one from 2022: https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2022-06-03 https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2...
  - carapace 4y ago
    A tiny bloom in Bristol Channel doesn't contradict the findings of the scientists.
    - ac29 4y ago
      The article says "fish, whales and dolphins [will] become extinct" in "a few years". That is an extraordinary claim.
      - carapace 4y ago
        It follows pretty directly from the absence of plankton, eh? I don't doubt that there are people out there monitoring plankton levels from satellite images, and they could probably clear things up on where we actually stand in re: ocean life and trends thereof. But not a few randos on reddit, eh?
      - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        Is it really? We're in the middle of a mass extinction caused by our activities: The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction,[3][4] is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity.[5][6][7][8] The included extinctions span numerous families of bacteria, fungi, plants[9][10][11] and animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. With widespread degradation of highly biodiverse habitats such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, or no one has yet discovered their extinction. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction This has been going on for a very long time and there's clear signs the rate of environmental destruction is accelerating. At some point we will lose the fish and cetaceans. There is no doubt about that. To say that this time has finally come is not such an extraordinary claim. Anyway I'm sure that scientists have been warning about this (the destruction of the oceans' ability to sustain life) for decades and nothing has been done. It makes sense that, either those scientists were wrong in their warnings, or fish and marine mammals will die out, sooner or later. So what makes it extraordinary? I mean, that's why people say destroying the environment is not a good idea, right?

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

The article reports that 90% of plankton is gone, not "the plankton are gone". Additionally, it seems that this is a correction of an earlier estimate according to which 50% of the plankton should be gone by now: >> The landmark research blames chemical pollution from plastics, farm fertilisers and pharmaceuticals in the water. Previously, it was thought the amount of plankton had halved since the 1940s, but the evidence gathered by the Scots suggest 90% has now vanished. Even if this correction is an overestimate, and the old estimate was right, the quantities of plankton halving since 1940 is still a disturbingly high amount of reduction. As to seeing plankton from space that doesn't really say anything unless we know what proportion of the plankton that exists is visible from space. For instance, it might not be possible to estimate total plankton quantities just from looking at a picture with a particular "bloom" concentrated in an area. I'm surprised about these numbers also but I don't know how I could easily trash the research reported, just because I've seen pictures of plankton. I think that's just making an overgeneralisation.

myshpa 4y ago

Yes, the article is bad. But lets not discredit the findings. Even if it's 90% in 2045, and if 1% of plankton dies every year (https://www.goesfoundation.com/ https://www.goesfoundation.com/), it means we've lost so far 70% of plankton since 1940. It still seems like a reason to be worried, and not to say "it's absolute garbage => everything's ok, no reason to be concerned".

fnordpiglet 4y ago

You know that image was from 2002 right?

brutusborn 4y ago
Here's one from 2022: https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2022-06-03 https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2...
- carapace 4y ago
  A tiny bloom in Bristol Channel doesn't contradict the findings of the scientists.
  - ac29 4y ago
    The article says "fish, whales and dolphins [will] become extinct" in "a few years". That is an extraordinary claim.
    - carapace 4y ago
      It follows pretty directly from the absence of plankton, eh? I don't doubt that there are people out there monitoring plankton levels from satellite images, and they could probably clear things up on where we actually stand in re: ocean life and trends thereof. But not a few randos on reddit, eh?
    - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
      Is it really? We're in the middle of a mass extinction caused by our activities: The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction,[3][4] is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity.[5][6][7][8] The included extinctions span numerous families of bacteria, fungi, plants[9][10][11] and animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. With widespread degradation of highly biodiverse habitats such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, or no one has yet discovered their extinction. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction This has been going on for a very long time and there's clear signs the rate of environmental destruction is accelerating. At some point we will lose the fish and cetaceans. There is no doubt about that. To say that this time has finally come is not such an extraordinary claim. Anyway I'm sure that scientists have been warning about this (the destruction of the oceans' ability to sustain life) for decades and nothing has been done. It makes sense that, either those scientists were wrong in their warnings, or fish and marine mammals will die out, sooner or later. So what makes it extraordinary? I mean, that's why people say destroying the environment is not a good idea, right?