Sensible Erection | Ocean Plankton Dying Off

Friday, 30 July 2010

quote [ A new study finds that since 1950, the amount of phytoplankton in the ocean's surface waters — the basis of the ocean's food web — has declined by 40 percent. ]

Pesky global warming again! (If you happen to believe in that stuff)

Abstract from 'Nature':
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html

We have proof. Go tell the Exchange they were right.

[sci&tech] [by sanepride@5:37amGMT] [+10 Informative]

Comments

kishi said @ 5:47am GMT on 30th Jul
They're just pining for the fjords.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:14am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
or the fnords.

maryyugo said @ 4:36pm GMT on 30th Jul
Or Fords?

symmetrian said @ 6:12pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2 Funny]
What the fuck? Or the... what? Did you just forget to finish typing?

swiggy said @ 5:55am GMT on 30th Jul
Should I freak out? I'm kind of curious as to whether I should freak out.

gunthar said @ 6:03am GMT on 30th Jul
yes.

swiggy said @ 6:08am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:5 Insightful]
FUCK FUCKING SHIT CHRIST FUCK WE'RE ALL DEAD

leezurd said @ 6:09am GMT on 30th Jul
Good job!

-_- said @ 8:11am GMT on 30th Jul
A jorb well done!

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:18am GMT on 30th Jul
Let them eat plastic!

Dioxin said @ 6:26am GMT on 30th Jul
Plastic cake. Let them eat plastic cake.

sanepride said @ 6:32am GMT on 30th Jul
Or people. People cake.

Krutz said @ 7:03am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]

danshyu said @ 6:39am GMT on 30th Jul
Shit man, I can't live without seafood.

Krutz said @ 7:05am GMT on 30th Jul

maryyugo said @ 6:44am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
Interesting that plankton doesn't adapt to what have to be very small changes in average temp -- if indeed it doesn't and if indeed that's what causes the change in it.

moriati said @ 6:50am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:3 Informative]
Not the plankton at fault, it's that temperature changes prevent nutrients rising from the deeper water into the zone with light, phytoplankton needing both in order to photosynthesise.

As a side note, I once lost a Secchi disk whilst taking readings for a group project at University. Some called it carelessness but I remain adamant it was sabotage!

spite48 said @ 7:08am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Adaptation on a 50 year time scale would have prevented various extinction events.

ralfmaximus said @ 1:58pm GMT on 30th Jul
Is that really possible though?

50 years is but an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.

conception said @ 3:47pm GMT on 30th Jul
Generally no... which is why we have extinction events.

loomspace said @ 4:11pm GMT on 30th Jul
Just saw an interesting documentary on the increase of Saharan dust storms prior to major climatic shifts in the past (oddly pitched under the title 'Extreme Cave Diving' NOVA / National Geographic). The storms go atmospheric, distributing themselves globally. The Saharan dust, ironically enough, is considered to be a significant phytoplankton fertilizer as well as a contributor to cooling through solar shielding.

Minor organisms living on the larger organism of Earth don't have to necessarily evolve at these generational scales when Earth has evolved on a geologic scale.

*fingers crossed*

maryyugo said @ 4:38pm GMT on 30th Jul
"Not the plankton at fault, it's that temperature changes prevent nutrients rising from the deeper water into the zone with light, phytoplankton needing both in order to photosynthesise."

Not quite understanding how it would do that but even if so, would it not be a transient effect? Wouldn't equilibrium be restored fairly soon?

sanepride said @ 4:47pm GMT on 30th Jul
If indeed the effect is the result of a long-term, ongoing warming trend (which, obviously, some people choose to question), how would 'equilibrium' be restored? The logical assumption is that the trend will continue, even accelerate.

sanepride said @ 7:17am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
There seems to be little doubt about what's causing it. From the abstract in 'Nature':
These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures.

For a person who otherwise seems to favor scientific analysis over populist hearsay, you certainly seem to be in the populist camp over this particular subject.

NOAA: Past decade warmest on record.

hellboy said @ 7:24am GMT on 30th Jul
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Here's what we can look forward to.

ralfmaximus said @ 12:56pm GMT on 30th Jul
A lovely parting gift courtesy of Amazon?

Nostrildamus said @ 9:54am GMT on 30th Jul
Uhhh, guys.. we need these things for oxygen.

Fenny said @ 1:43pm GMT on 30th Jul
We do?

Fenny said @ 1:46pm GMT on 30th Jul
Ohh, so we do.

*runs off to hug some phytoplankton*

sanepride said @ 4:26pm GMT on 30th Jul
Hurry. Supplies are limited.

Baron said @ 9:57am GMT on 30th Jul

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

robotroadkill said @ 10:49am GMT on 30th Jul
I'm guessing he's supposed to be some kind of zooplankton.

robotroadkill said @ 10:50am GMT on 30th Jul
Uh... if we're taking jokes seriously. That's what we're doing, right?

Baron said @ 7:50pm GMT on 30th Jul
He's from Spongebob Squarepants

balzac said @ 12:03am GMT on 31st Jul
That's right baron. Spongebob squarepants is an american animated television show that airs on the Nickelodeon children's network. It stars a sea sponge which is portrayed in the more familiar kitchen sponge shape.

Created by animator and Marine biologist Stephen Hillenburg, the show is among the most popular on the network. and is currently in its tenth year.

Glad we could clear this up.

ComposerNate said @ 9:57am GMT on 30th Jul [Score:4 Insightful]

donnie said @ 11:20am GMT on 30th Jul
And up next - hippies trying to sell raw milk to YOUR children!

maryyugo said @ 4:41pm GMT on 30th Jul
More like whooping cough (pertussis).

Hippies tend to avoid vaccines. Unfortunately this doesn't exactly follow Darwin's principles. It hurts others as well, especially very small babies, too young to be vaccinated and dependent on "herd immunity" for protection.

Krutz said @ 5:01pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
"Hippies tend to avoid vaccines."

Citation needed, other than you just projecting on people you dislike (usually the poor).

And Jenny McCarthy is a hippie? Huh. And here I thought it was middle-class and religious nutters worried about autism along with the colloidal silver crowd that thought vaccines were toxic.

sanepride said @ 5:17pm GMT on 30th Jul
It seems maryyugo is conveniently selective in scientific skepticism, arising I assume, from personal prejudices.

How is it that someone so uncompromisingly rational on vaccination can also be a global warming skeptic? I'm guessing it's because 'hippies' believe in global warming. Which easily negates the conclusions of the world's climatologists.

Krutz said @ 5:48pm GMT on 30th Jul
Yeah, I was trying to find a smarmy way of tying the whole "the environment will find equilibrium" concept she clings to with deaths from not being vaccinated, but it was too depressing.

sanepride said @ 6:04pm GMT on 30th Jul
The funny thing is that the whole "the environment will find equilibrium" concept sounds a lot like mindless faith that some Higher Power will save us.

symmetrian said @ 6:10pm GMT on 30th Jul
Personally, I do believe that the environment will "find equilibrium", I just think that could be thousands (millions, whatever) of years off and will likely come after the sublimation of land masses and the annihilation of human life. That's all fine with me.

sanepride said @ 7:09pm GMT on 30th Jul
That's nice. In the meantime, we still have to live here, you included.
Maybe it's a little judgmental on my part, but it's ignorant, selfish, and irresponsible to just say 'oh, who cares, Earth will go on long after we've fucked it up and died off'. The inconvenient reality is that you are here now, using air, water, food fuel, etc. Unless you're willing to give up all of these nice things, you share the responsibility of sustaining them.

symmetrian said @ 9:09pm GMT on 30th Jul
Oh, I do what I can to keep my personal impact low and I certainly hope other people do as well, but the idea of the planet becoming inhospitable to human life does not in any way bother me, whether that were to happen today or in a million years.

sanepride said @ 10:15pm GMT on 30th Jul
Sorry, but I think if it happened today it would bother you.

symmetrian said @ 11:19pm GMT on 30th Jul
I imagine I wouldn't survive it, so how could I be bothered? I'm sure I'd be very upset that I don't get to play more video games or have more sex or drink more booze or... No, nevermind, I absolutely would not.

Okay, I'll admit I'd be upset if my cats perished before I did.

ralfmaximus said @ 11:25pm GMT on 30th Jul
Intriguing engineering problem.

You COULD rig them with small explosive charges, wired into a cellphone; one phone per cat. Then you could speed-dial each kitty with your final impulse.

Phones would have to be tiny enough to fit on their collars. A watch-phone would serve nicely, but it could get expensive... how many cats are we talking about here?

symmetrian said @ 11:45pm GMT on 30th Jul
Five. And I don't care if they die *with* me, I'd just prefer them not to die before I do as it would make me sad to see them go.

spite48 said @ 12:07am GMT on 31st Jul
Then I'm afraid you need to wear the explosive collar.

sanepride said @ 12:29am GMT on 31st Jul
Well in the event of a societal collapse and food shortage, it's conceivable you would have to eat your cats.

It would be sad, but at least you'd feel better with a full belly.

symmetrian said @ 7:15pm GMT on 2nd Aug
That's a good point.

I'm not sure if I'd have the balls to kill myself, so yeah, I'd probably be eating cat stew.

bruceski said @ 8:18pm GMT on 30th Jul
It will find equilibrium, but not one that's pleasant for us. The earth is like a camel; when temperatures are cool it has a stable equilibrium at a low body temperature, but when it's hot the body regulates itself at a higher temperature to survive.

ralfmaximus said @ 11:33pm GMT on 30th Jul
I suppose it depends on your definition of "survive".

Photosynthesis pretty much stops at 105 degrees F. If temperatures remain that high for more than a few weeks plant life goes dormant then dies. If all the surface plantlife/plankton dies off, that kills all macroscopic life, save some deep-ocean volcanic vent critters.

Can the world reboot itself from a few wiggly blind things and anaerobic bacteria?

Polyphemus said @ 2:22am GMT on 31st Jul
Sure could. All the hard bit of creating life is at the unicellular stage. All the rest just follows naturally. Like the silicon chip is an obvious step from the transistor. This is why "nothing happens" for such a long time before vertebrate life turns up in the fossil record.

donnie said @ 11:39am GMT on 30th Jul

...on a positive note, even if all photosynthesis stopped instantly it would still take millions of years for any appreciable change in atmospheric O2 levels. Lots of time to figure something out.

Polyphemus said @ 12:06pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:2]
I am tempted to believe you are borderline retarded. I mean able to function in society and all but with some serious issues.

cb361 said @ 12:55pm GMT on 30th Jul
It took you three years to figure that out?

Polyphemus said @ 1:15pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Is there a word for person unable to process enviromental information appropriately. Like Sociopath or Psychopath?
Ecopath
Enviropath
Walks down sandwalk musing.

cb361 said @ 1:25pm GMT on 30th Jul
We generally just say STFU without worrying about his psychological classification.

sanepride said @ 4:19pm GMT on 30th Jul
"Republican"

maryyugo said @ 4:43pm GMT on 30th Jul
Some but that's, as usual, a mindless overgeneralization. Some dems are also anti-environment. The American political parties are hardly homogenous.

Krutz said @ 5:02pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:3 Funny]
"Some but that's, as usual, a mindless overgeneralization."

Tell me more about the hippies and vaccines, Mary...

b said @ 7:32pm GMT on 31st Jul
zing!

sanepride said @ 5:06pm GMT on 30th Jul
Sure it's a generalization. We sometimes use that as a tool in attempts to be funny.

But it's a truthful generalization. The official platforms of the national and various state Republican parties consistently favor economic development and corporate interest over rules and regulations for environmental protection. Even party platforms that acknowledge global warming as a reality (increasing numbers don't) refuse to consider any form of governmental intrusion in addressing it. And of course we have prominent party members like Senator Inhofe who continue to insist that the phenomenon itself is an invented hoax, using his position as former chairman (now minority leader) of the Environment & Public Works Committee to officially disseminate denialist propaganda.

maryyugo said @ 4:42pm GMT on 30th Jul
"Is there a word for person unable to process enviromental information appropriately."

Libertarian? Limbaughstyleextremelydisgustarian?

f00m@nB@r said @ 5:16pm GMT on 30th Jul
Better yet, he has a PhD.

donnie said @ 12:59am GMT on 3rd Aug
...are you saying it would not take millions of years for the atmospheric O2 levels to change appreciably? Or are you suggesting that a million years is not sufficient time to recognize and appropriately address such an issue?

spite48 said @ 2:55am GMT on 3rd Aug
I don't know if you are correct or not, if you have a source, that'd be great. Do the calculations include oxygen consumption from all sources, including wildfires?

Oxygen level isn't the only issue with breath-ability surely.

If photosynthesis stops, doesn't that mean that natural means of scrubbing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other contaminants from the atmosphere also stop?

donnie said @ 11:21am GMT on 3rd Aug
I don't know if you are correct or not

Yes, however polyphemus seems convinced that I am mentally damaged. I was rather curious as to why.

Naruki said @ 2:27pm GMT on 3rd Aug
Probably he's, you know, read some of the things you write.

sua_sponte said @ 5:00pm GMT on 30th Jul
AL GORE derp de derrr CLIMATEGATE derr derp de derr

sanepride said @ 5:25pm GMT on 30th Jul
incpenners?

anger_die said @ 7:09pm GMT on 30th Jul
Distracting from all this doom and gloom and sealed fate of suffocation, and temperatures incompatible with most life for just a moment - your comment hints to a much more interesting topic: Nixon. Imagine how it must feel to be him - who's sole life purpose is to serve as a bad example. Every scandal since has been named after his only ever-lasting legacy: Gate. It's as if he alone stole this nation's political innocence. We must've been just and pure before him. I long for simpler times, where corruption was unheard of.

Anyway, back to topic: Al Gore. He's to blame for this mess. I never even heard of this "global warming" until he came along riling up everyone.

sanepride said @ 7:17pm GMT on 30th Jul
Isn't it nice and easy to just blame the most visible messenger instead of even acknowledging, or attempting to deal with the problem?

That seems to be how we do things now in 'merica! And folks wonder why we're a declining power. Once upon a time we were the world's handyman. Now we clog up the toilet, and when someone has the gall to point out the toilet's clogged, we just ridicule him and go right on shitting in it.

anger_die said @ 8:28pm GMT on 30th Jul
Is it so wrong that we consume so much that our bowel movements alone destroy the municipal sewer system for the entire region? I mean, that's what we pay taxes for, right? So someone can fix it?

Didel said @ 8:44pm GMT on 30th Jul
I just want to point out that political scandal has long been a part of this country's history, long before Nixon. And in my opinion, Nixon's crimes were less than some of the ones perpetrated during the 19th century.

anger_die said @ 9:25pm GMT on 30th Jul
I'm dying to know what exactly this guy wrote.

Any one speaking the words contained in the Congressional Record [added by Thomas L. Blanton D-Tx (1921)] would be subject to fine an imprisonment... There is not a member who will not say that it is the vilest thing he has ever seen in print.

anger_die said @ 9:41pm GMT on 30th Jul
"Motion to alter procedural rules: Members are now required to state 'I suck cock' as an affirmative vote. Members are now required to state 'Vagina' as a negative vote. Members are now required to address the Speaker of the House as: 'Cum sock'"

Krutz said @ 11:03pm GMT on 30th Jul
Given the Congressional description of the "F word" in 2004, I'm guessing it's not that bad, unless they had more vivid imaginations back in the day:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Back in Black

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

ralfmaximus said @ 3:57pm GMT on 31st Jul
I loooove Lewis Black. Thanks for diggin that up.

spite48 said @ 9:41pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Worldwide declines in oxygen levels can drop to levels incapable of sustaining life numerous aquatic life forms. It has happened in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
Interesting (scary) reading.

Bad things can happen. The idea that we can convert all of the world's oil reserves into atmospheric carbon over a period of 100 years without consequence seems a little silly to me. If we are simultaneously dumping unprecedented amounts of human waste and other chemicals into the air and water without any idea as to the consequences, that's just idiocy.

ralfmaximus said @ 10:02pm GMT on 30th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Alas, we're still functioning with monkey software in our brains. It's only been 50,000 years or so since we came in from the forest, and we still suck at things like long-term risk-assessment.

Thus we end up with algorithms like "if dumping trash in the water for ten years is okay [yields no adverse effect] then it must be okay to do it forever."

Or, "Global Warming is a lie because things have been the same since I was a child and such sweeping change is hard to believe without proof and everything SEEMS the same now."

And arguing with monkeys is just a waste of time.

sanepride said @ 10:21pm GMT on 30th Jul
We're actually pretty good at long-term risk-assessment, what we suck at is serious organizational planning for such risks. We certainly have the capacity to understand cause and effect, and future consequences for present day actions, but like our animal pals, our actions are motivated by our perceptions of the here-and-now.

But yes, we apparently are not as evolved as a species as we like to think we are.

ralfmaximus said @ 10:41pm GMT on 30th Jul
We're actually pretty good at long-term risk-assessment

I think it depends on how you define "long". Most people I've asked think 100 years is a "long time". 1000 years is simply unfathomable. We're aces at assessment up to a human lifetime, but beyond that it all becomes fuzzy and somebodyelsesproblem.

It's the scientists and science-fiction readers who can think in spans that really matter in this level of crisis, and sadly, they're not in charge.

spite48 said @ 11:03pm GMT on 30th Jul
They should be in charge. Our entire system of politics and governance runs on a four year cycle of "Get elected - pander to the base - fulfill promises to your donors - get blowjobs from interns - make everything your successor's problem - start a foundation and name your library".

f00m@nB@r said @ 3:16am GMT on 31st Jul
Technocracy. Unfortunately, techies tend not to be so hot on interpersonal relations and diplomacy, i.e. dealing with those of non techie outlook. It's changing a bit, with the encroachment of policy on science and tech.

Naruki said @ 11:08pm GMT on 30th Jul
It's the scientists and science-fiction readers who can think in spans that really matter in this level of crisis, and sadly, they're not in charge.

Many of the former, almost none of the latter.

ralfmaximus said @ 11:59pm GMT on 30th Jul
What passes for science fiction nowadays simply isn't. Giant robot explosions and Wookies don't count.

Remove "fanboys" from the equation and you might be surprised; I think most hard SF readers are capable of thinking long-term.

sanepride said @ 1:38am GMT on 31st Jul
Certainly 1000 years would go way beyond any serious human planning. In those terms a few generations - maybe 100-150 years would be a 'long time'. The idea is to think about your progeny - children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren.
I think by most people's view of the future, anybody beyond that is on their own.