Oh noes--end of days?

Well, that's about the worst news I've heard in a while.

I wonder how long it takes plankton to adjust to new temps / conditions.

They've been changing almost constantly for god knows how long, and very unique for the majority of history, people use the shape of plankton to help judge the age of rock formations where they are present as it's very accurate.

Oh well, in the mean time, I'm going to say that we'll just have to cut off the air for twilight fans and share the supplies they may have used.

Worrying about Global warming is worrying about deck chairs on the titanic. Even if i became carbon neutral tomorrow, along with all of America, China and India will not.

Realistically we're 20 years from being carbon neutral ourselves if we even had the political will to do it. India, China, Much longer, and they feel like they are entitled to use dirty energy because hey, america did.

/I vote we put money in the space program and find some other planet to pollute.

fluffy2097: Worrying about Global warming is worrying about deck chairs on the titanic. Even if i became carbon neutral tomorrow, along with all of America, China and India will not.

Realistically we're 20 years from being carbon neutral ourselves if we even had the political will to do it. India, China, Much longer, and they feel like they are entitled to use dirty energy because hey, america did.

/I vote we put money in the space program and find some other planet to pollute.

I always have to wonder, are we so far behind where we thought we would be in terms of space exploration and expansion because we simply lacked the political will to devote serious resources and direction to it, or was the tech just not there to do it?

Whatever dude. I'm more interested in this new Soylent color coming out.

Little_Dictator: fluffy2097: Worrying about Global warming is worrying about deck chairs on the titanic. Even if i became carbon neutral tomorrow, along with all of America, China and India will not.

Realistically we're 20 years from being carbon neutral ourselves if we even had the political will to do it. India, China, Much longer, and they feel like they are entitled to use dirty energy because hey, america did.

/I vote we put money in the space program and find some other planet to pollute.

I always have to wonder, are we so far behind where we thought we would be in terms of space exploration and expansion because we simply lacked the political will to devote serious resources and direction to it, or was the tech just not there to do it?

It's because space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen...

fluffy2097:

Realistically we're 20 years from being carbon neutral ourselves if we even had the political will to do it. India, China, Much longer, and they feel like they are entitled to use dirty energy because hey, america did.



When Mother Nature does her backlash, places like China and India will be among the first to feel the pain.

/US is not immune, we'll just have our day of reckoning a bit later.

In before some math-tard asks how something can decrease by 111%.

Juc: I wonder how long it takes plankton to adjust to new temps / conditions.

Adaptation to warmer water is a matter of readjusting enzyme efficiencies at the new temperature regime, and with their short generation time and sufficient diversity phytoplankton ought to be able to accomplish that very rapidly. Phytoplankton like the coral symbionts which don't get out and mix up their gene pool much could have a tougher time of it.

TFA: Temperatures on the surface of our oceans are rising because of climate change, resulting in a reduction of the stock of phytoplankton.

The original article (and this repeat) attribute the reduction directly to higher surface water temperatures, but I doubt that is the case. The main driver of oceanic phytoplankton density BY FAR is nutrient levels. In open ocean, N and P come mostly from upwelling, which is in turn driven by thermohaline circulation, which may be slowing down lately. The reduction in thermohaline circulation may be due to freshwater inputs from glaciers in the up north associated with climate change, but it's not exactly the "ZOMG we're boiling the plankton!" implied in TFA.

I love these stories. I can't wait for the bees to disappear again!

fluffy2097: /I vote we put money in the space program and find some other planet to pollute.

I'm sure that's snark, but there are people who will ask that seriously. While I'm all for real space colonization, we'll never be able to put enough people offworld to "leave" as a species. We did a much better job of "leaving" Europe to colonize America than we ever could even if we were to "go" to Mars. Another star? Fuggedaboutit. We don't have the fuel. Besides, it's like the old saying about China. If Chinese troops could walk to America single-file, we could shoot every one of them and they would never stop coming.

farklenny: I love these stories. I can't wait for the bees to disappear again!

They didn't disappear.

They went home.

Thenixon: Juc: I wonder how long it takes plankton to adjust to new temps / conditions.

Adaptation to warmer water is a matter of readjusting enzyme efficiencies at the new temperature regime, and with their short generation time and sufficient diversity phytoplankton ought to be able to accomplish that very rapidly. Phytoplankton like the coral symbionts which don't get out and mix up their gene pool much could have a tougher time of it.

TFA: Temperatures on the surface of our oceans are rising because of climate change, resulting in a reduction of the stock of phytoplankton.

The original article (and this repeat) attribute the reduction directly to higher surface water temperatures, but I doubt that is the case. The main driver of oceanic phytoplankton density BY FAR is nutrient levels. In open ocean, N and P come mostly from upwelling, which is in turn driven by thermohaline circulation, which may be slowing down lately. The reduction in thermohaline circulation may be due to freshwater inputs from glaciers in the up north associated with climate change, but it's not exactly the "ZOMG we're boiling the plankton!" implied in TFA.

So in other words something to keep our eyes on but not the world ending catastrophe the article makes it out to be. As always, life will find a way, nature will adapt.

I was really bothered by how many slanted, fearmongering words this article used. It always makes me take what an article says with a grain of salt. Give me the facts, let me decide how to feel.

Little_Dictator: fluffy2097: Worrying about Global warming is worrying about deck chairs on the titanic. Even if i became carbon neutral tomorrow, along with all of America, China and India will not.

Realistically we're 20 years from being carbon neutral ourselves if we even had the political will to do it. India, China, Much longer, and they feel like they are entitled to use dirty energy because hey, america did.

/I vote we put money in the space program and find some other planet to pollute.

I always have to wonder, are we so far behind where we thought we would be in terms of space exploration and expansion because we simply lacked the political will to devote serious resources and direction to it, or was the tech just not there to do it?

Once it was realized that nuclear bombs could be utilized to provide propulsion in the 1950s, scientists began sketching plans for spaceships massing over a million tons, the largest of which could plausibly have been our first interstellar starship. In the 1960s nuclear thermal rockets with five times the specific impulse of any chemical rocket were actually being test fired.

Today we've retreated all the way to low-earth orbit and America is on the brink of not even having a manned launch platform.

Enjoy your stagnating, slowly-collapsing civilization, Earth.

Little_Dictator:
I always have to wonder, are we so far behind where we thought we would be in terms of space exploration and expansion because we simply lacked the political will to devote serious resources and direction to it, or was the tech just not there to do it?

It's too expensive to launch large amounts of mass into orbit. Once we figure that out, getting anywhere else is just a matter of time.

The problem with cheap rockets that can reach orbit is that it means anyone can make an ICBM.

erik-k: Once it was realized that nuclear bombs could be utilized to provide propulsion in the 1950s, scientists began sketching plans for spaceships massing over a million tons, the largest of which could plausibly have been our first interstellar starship. In the 1960s nuclear thermal rockets with five times the specific impulse of any chemical rocket were actually being test fired.

You're going to use nuclear bombs to launch a ship into orbit?

How do you get a million tons into orbit? THAT'S why the space race stagnated. It's only recently with the advent of computers that it's become cheap enough to engineer rockets for commercial applications.

Well, I'm convinced. I'm ready to give up my airconditioning, sugar, beef, and freedom. Show me where to sign. Where should I stand?

I have three words for you: bullshiat.

"Oh, no! Night Wolf is swallowing the Moon Virgin!! Cross my hand with silver, and I will make him spit her out."

Seriously, you people are just so ready to make life about suffering, death, and doom that you'll believe any fool thing people tell you.

If "President" Obama came to your front door in the morning and told you he needed a blow job or the world would end, you'd ask if you could swallow. Then you'd ask "Please, sir, could I have another?"

TheSilverOne: So in other words something to keep our eyes on but not the world ending catastrophe the article makes it out to be. As always, life will find a way, nature will adapt.

I was really bothered by how many slanted, fearmongering words this article used. It always makes me take what an article says with a grain of salt. Give me the facts, let me decide how to feel.

If it's a real trend and not an effect of the Secchi disk measurements used in place of more direct phytoplankton measurements, the end result will be less fish to harvest - but its not like there is a long lag time for most food species, so fish stocks have probably been declining due to the phytoplankton reductions started. In other words, if we'd just been counting fish since 1899 and not overharvesting, we might have seen some slow, steady declines instead of the epic collapses in various species.

Most times you filter science through the brain of a journalist, you end up with crap like this article.

Thenixon: TheSilverOne: So in other words something to keep our eyes on but not the world ending catastrophe the article makes it out to be. As always, life will find a way, nature will adapt.

I was really bothered by how many slanted, fearmongering words this article used. It always makes me take what an article says with a grain of salt. Give me the facts, let me decide how to feel.

If it's a real trend and not an effect of the Secchi disk measurements used in place of more direct phytoplankton measurements, the end result will be less fish to harvest - but its not like there is a long lag time for most food species, so fish stocks have probably been declining due to the phytoplankton reductions started. In other words, if we'd just been counting fish since 1899 and not overharvesting, we might have seen some slow, steady declines instead of the epic collapses in various species.

Most times you filter science through the brain of a journalist, you end up with crap like this article.

I always appreciate when someone has actual knowledge on a subject I don't and comes in and explains rather than going all "OH NOES!" Thanks.

bigstoopidbruce: If "President" Obama

It is rare that a username is so befitting of the poster.

fluffy2097: Little_Dictator:
I always have to wonder, are we so far behind where we thought we would be in terms of space exploration and expansion because we simply lacked the political will to devote serious resources and direction to it, or was the tech just not there to do it?

It's too expensive to launch large amounts of mass into orbit. Once we figure that out, getting anywhere else is just a matter of time.

The problem with cheap rockets that can reach orbit is that it means anyone can make an ICBM.

erik-k: Once it was realized that nuclear bombs could be utilized to provide propulsion in the 1950s, scientists began sketching plans for spaceships massing over a million tons, the largest of which could plausibly have been our first interstellar starship. In the 1960s nuclear thermal rockets with five times the specific impulse of any chemical rocket were actually being test fired.

You're going to use nuclear bombs to launch a ship into orbit?

How do you get a million tons into orbit? THAT'S why the space race stagnated. It's only recently with the advent of computers that it's become cheap enough to engineer rockets for commercial applications.

NERVA (new window)