As ocean oxygen levels dip, fish face an uncertain future(e360.yale.edu)
e360.yale.edu
As ocean oxygen levels dip, fish face an uncertain future
https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-ocean-oxygen-levels-dip-fish-face-an-uncertain-future
158 comments
Perhaps your friends work in a region like the GOM where anoxic zones are a substantial and growing issue or regions where management remains poor so the sentiment would be accurate for their domain, but it isn't even close to holding true globally for all fish stocks, neither effects of low oxygen nor overharvesting etc. There were big improvements in stock assessment and fisheries management around 15-20 years ago and many formerly overfished stocks are on a positive trend since [1]
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909726116
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909726116
While Ray Hilborn is one of the biggest (most publishing) voices in academic fisheries research, others absolutely hate him: Greenpeace calls him a 'overfishing denier' https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/overfishing-denier/
>As part of their investigation into our appeal, the journal also posted a correction noting that several authors of a paper defending the Marine Stewardship Council were actually employed by the MSC – and Ray Hilborn had received funding from certifiers employed by the MSC. Small victories, perhaps, but in an era where we need strong scientific advice more than ever, we cannot afford to have research clouded by undisclosed conflicts of interest.
>As part of their investigation into our appeal, the journal also posted a correction noting that several authors of a paper defending the Marine Stewardship Council were actually employed by the MSC – and Ray Hilborn had received funding from certifiers employed by the MSC. Small victories, perhaps, but in an era where we need strong scientific advice more than ever, we cannot afford to have research clouded by undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science.
Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He also received funding from WWF in that period, so is he also a environmentalist shill along with a fishing industry shill?
Note that Greenpeace can't manage to critique, nor find someone to critique, the actual science.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He also received funding from WWF in that period, so is he also a environmentalist shill along with a fishing industry shill?
Note that Greenpeace can't manage to critique, nor find someone to critique, the actual science.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
You can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
You can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit on his science.
Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!
Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!
I'm curious, Please find the list of funding bodies appended to the PLOS one article and let me know which presented a 'massive conflict of interest' due to being in the five years preceding that article?
His consulting clients are either fishers or construction companies doing invasive environmental construction work. Which clients aren’t a massive conflict of interest? Is it surprising that he finds no issue with current fishing practices when many industry players are paying his bills? Isn’t there a saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?
If Greenpeace hates him, that’s a pretty good indication that he’s a reasonable scientist imo.
Greenpeace is generally unreasonable politically and scientifically. Their efforts to stop nuclear development have likely caused a third of anthropogenic warming. Their campaigns make the public hate them. They are not a good org to trust for balanced science.
Greenpeace is generally unreasonable politically and scientifically. Their efforts to stop nuclear development have likely caused a third of anthropogenic warming. Their campaigns make the public hate them. They are not a good org to trust for balanced science.
Yep. Greenpeace is one of the major reasons we're in this mess to begin with, with their extremely successful anti-nuclear campaigns.
[deleted]
North Atlantic, Great Lakes, African great lakes, and northern Pacific. Lots of hand waving about improvements but the people who I know that work directly with it and have dedicated their lives to studying such things say the opposite.
> Lots of hand waving about improvements
I imagine it doesn't seem ironic to you because people you trust gave a compelling narrative, but for the rest of us all you've given us is (second-hand) handwaving. All we mutually have to go off of is data, and anyone can go check what stocks are being taken off the overfished list [1] in a some of the areas you named. I'm not claiming all fish stocks are doing great. Some remain overfished, some are in bad shape or shifting out of their historical ranges due to climate, etc. But unconditional doomerism applies here at least as poorly as it does on average.
[1] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-...
I imagine it doesn't seem ironic to you because people you trust gave a compelling narrative, but for the rest of us all you've given us is (second-hand) handwaving. All we mutually have to go off of is data, and anyone can go check what stocks are being taken off the overfished list [1] in a some of the areas you named. I'm not claiming all fish stocks are doing great. Some remain overfished, some are in bad shape or shifting out of their historical ranges due to climate, etc. But unconditional doomerism applies here at least as poorly as it does on average.
[1] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable-fisheries/status-...
Mass fish death: "won't someone think of the fisheries!"
Mass fishery death: "won't someone think of the seafood!"
We deserve this
Mass fishery death: "won't someone think of the seafood!"
We deserve this
Pretty much. While I am but one of 8 billion people, all animal products have been off the table for a long time now. Part adaption to the future, part protection of what we have today, part ethics.
Yep. 5 years for me. Not sure what will get me first: the protein deficiency, or some kind of stroke from reading rake kickflip justifications for maintaining the animal ag status quo.
Definitely the latter. Mine will come from arguing from a friend that went on full carnivore diet thanks to that paragon of dietary advice Jordan Peterson... the conversations are VERY disagreeable.
My boss did that 5 years ago. He almost died before adopting it.
I feel this is going to be a pattern more and more common. It already has been increasing for decades. We have royally messed up this planet and its ecosystems.
They are already growing fish meat in labs, hopefully that and farming will take some of the pressure off the wild fisheries.
The single biggest issue with lab meat is the lack of an immune system. Once we crack that then there is a real chance of this stuff working out. That said until then, I will just avoid all meats. If I have those cravings, the alternatives we have now are reasonable enough to scratch that itch even if not the same.
Lab grown beef has sure had a major impact on clear-cut ranching
Yeah, it turns out, things never get cheaper or created in greater quantities over time. No history of that ever happening.
Sure ... but we still don't know how to grow that in big quantities. And scaling the production could take few decades.
Plants do we have now, and properly cooked they're delicious ;)
Plants do we have now, and properly cooked they're delicious ;)
It is in the book 'Dark Age America' by John Michael Greer, he does make mention of this that any one reading that book and is still fairly young, there will be a day when they have their last bit of seafood.
That is one of those books, you hate that his vision of the future looks so plausible.
It is a shame that in recent years he went full an anti-vax with Covid even though he explained why that kind of thinking had issue in that very book. He has also started engaging in bizarre conspiracy theories about a lot of things.
That is one of those books, you hate that his vision of the future looks so plausible.
It is a shame that in recent years he went full an anti-vax with Covid even though he explained why that kind of thinking had issue in that very book. He has also started engaging in bizarre conspiracy theories about a lot of things.
By then we will be 3D printing fatty toro sashimi w/out the mercury.
Might not be a long wait. At least one company (wildtypefoods) is making lab made salmon and they specifically are targeting the sushi market.
By then we will be inside cans of soylent green.
Farm raised or wild caught soylent green?
Good. They should tough it out and grow a pair—of lungs, that is. Living in an aquatic environment has made all the fish grow soft. Time to evolve like the rest of us did.
(More seriously, warm ocean dead spots affect more than just fish: I suspect we’ll see a further decline in marine mammals too, for example.)
(More seriously, warm ocean dead spots affect more than just fish: I suspect we’ll see a further decline in marine mammals too, for example.)
Actually some fish living in anoxic environments have adapted to breathing air. Betta fish and Corydoras come to mind.
> The oxygen drop is driven by a few factors. First, the laws of physics dictate that warmer water can hold less dissolved gas than cooler water (this is why a warm soda is less fizzy than a cold one).
> Melting ice adds fresh, less-dense water that resists downward mixing in key regions, and the high rate of atmospheric warming at the poles, as compared to the equator, also dampens winds that drive ocean currents.
> Finally, bacteria living in the water, which feed off phytoplankton and other organic gunk as it falls to the seafloor, consume oxygen. This effect can be massive along coastlines, where fertilizer runoff feeds algae blooms, which in turn feed oxygen-gobbling bacteria
> Melting ice adds fresh, less-dense water that resists downward mixing in key regions, and the high rate of atmospheric warming at the poles, as compared to the equator, also dampens winds that drive ocean currents.
> Finally, bacteria living in the water, which feed off phytoplankton and other organic gunk as it falls to the seafloor, consume oxygen. This effect can be massive along coastlines, where fertilizer runoff feeds algae blooms, which in turn feed oxygen-gobbling bacteria
As water heats, the solubility of solids (salts, sugars, etc.) goes up.
As water heats, the solubility of gases (O2, CO2, etc.) goes down.
Humanity coming from initial blissful ignorance about CO2 emissions eventually became concerned about rising atmospheric CO2.
Most emitted CO2 was actually being absorbed by oceans. This also makes the ocean acidic.
So the oceans acted like a "landfill" buffering a large amount of CO2 emissions.
Consider a duplicate earth, where Carbon is added to atmospheric O2 oxygen molecules. As long as its surface waters are not saturated with CO2, it can buffer a large fraction of the resulting CO2, with an equilibrium constant between aqueous CO2 and atmospheric CO2. At a certain point this "CO2 landfill" or rather "CO2 seafill" saturates. Assuming for simplicity a constant CO2 emission rate, thus without increasing the rate of CO2 emission, atmospheric CO2 rises at an initial rate (slower than CO2 emission rate, since a large fraction is initially absorbed by the ocean surface waters); until surface waters are (near) saturation, at which point atmospheric CO2 starts rising at a much higher rate since the surface waters no longer absorb significant amounts of CO2.
If one then desparately and miraculously succeeds in somehow halting continued excess CO2 emissions, the globe will still heat due to the added atmospheric CO2, also heating these surface waters, decreasing gaseous solubilities, resulting not just in aqueous O2 depletion but also sadly in "CO2 blowback": the large fraction of CO2 historically dissolved in the surface waters turns back into the atmosphere, even though miraculously excess antropogenic CO2 emissions were halted!
From a "carbon credits" perspective, where players are traditionally viewed as nations and corporations, surface waters rear their head and releases the historical CO2 debth.
As water heats, the solubility of gases (O2, CO2, etc.) goes down.
Humanity coming from initial blissful ignorance about CO2 emissions eventually became concerned about rising atmospheric CO2.
Most emitted CO2 was actually being absorbed by oceans. This also makes the ocean acidic.
So the oceans acted like a "landfill" buffering a large amount of CO2 emissions.
Consider a duplicate earth, where Carbon is added to atmospheric O2 oxygen molecules. As long as its surface waters are not saturated with CO2, it can buffer a large fraction of the resulting CO2, with an equilibrium constant between aqueous CO2 and atmospheric CO2. At a certain point this "CO2 landfill" or rather "CO2 seafill" saturates. Assuming for simplicity a constant CO2 emission rate, thus without increasing the rate of CO2 emission, atmospheric CO2 rises at an initial rate (slower than CO2 emission rate, since a large fraction is initially absorbed by the ocean surface waters); until surface waters are (near) saturation, at which point atmospheric CO2 starts rising at a much higher rate since the surface waters no longer absorb significant amounts of CO2.
If one then desparately and miraculously succeeds in somehow halting continued excess CO2 emissions, the globe will still heat due to the added atmospheric CO2, also heating these surface waters, decreasing gaseous solubilities, resulting not just in aqueous O2 depletion but also sadly in "CO2 blowback": the large fraction of CO2 historically dissolved in the surface waters turns back into the atmosphere, even though miraculously excess antropogenic CO2 emissions were halted!
From a "carbon credits" perspective, where players are traditionally viewed as nations and corporations, surface waters rear their head and releases the historical CO2 debth.
Excess CO2 in surface water causes algae and phytoplankton blooms that feeds back into sealife. The CO2 is not being released once the water warms. Rather the waters are becoming more acidic and therefore "tastier".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate#Buffer
The first paragraph is written as if it only applies to blood, but chemical equilibria are of course more general, as acknowledged in the second paragraph starting with "Crucially, a similar buffer operates in the oceans."
Observe that the arrows for 1, 2 and 3 go both ways, and so represent reversible equilibrating reactions.
Perhaps you would like sweet seawater instead of salty seawater, but obviously taste can not be argued. Facts however can.
The first paragraph is written as if it only applies to blood, but chemical equilibria are of course more general, as acknowledged in the second paragraph starting with "Crucially, a similar buffer operates in the oceans."
Observe that the arrows for 1, 2 and 3 go both ways, and so represent reversible equilibrating reactions.
Perhaps you would like sweet seawater instead of salty seawater, but obviously taste can not be argued. Facts however can.
So there is this idea that we can reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by using iron seeding into the ocean causing a massive amount of phytoplankton production. But would the side effect of this be a drop in ocean oxygen levels?
Aside from Ocean Acidification, uncontrollable Algae Blooms, and Melting Sea Ice, we now have Ocean Deoxygenation on our plates. We also have unprecedented droughts on land as well. Humans really will be the next mass extinction event on this planet. So incredibly selfish.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by a third just since I've been alive.
It's difficult to overstate just how quickly we are destroying the planet.
I spend a lot of time snorkeling and I tell my kids to really take in what they see because it probably won't be there when they're parents themselves.
It's difficult to overstate just how quickly we are destroying the planet.
I spend a lot of time snorkeling and I tell my kids to really take in what they see because it probably won't be there when they're parents themselves.
Good lord. I thought you were exaggerating but indeed, up by a third since 1958:
https://www.co2levels.org/
I consider myself pretty aware of climate change but I suddenly realize I've never actually looked at the direct numbers. That's scary.
https://www.co2levels.org/
I consider myself pretty aware of climate change but I suddenly realize I've never actually looked at the direct numbers. That's scary.
I think it’s good to encourage appreciation, but no need to exaggerate risks.
IPCC predicts existential risks to marine ecosystems at temperatures much higher than today. Your child will probably be able to go snorkelling just fine as an adult. My local coral reefs have returned to health after a major bleeching event that was predicted to be the beginning of the end. Sometimes our catastrophic predictions are wrong, or exaggerated.
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summar...
IPCC predicts existential risks to marine ecosystems at temperatures much higher than today. Your child will probably be able to go snorkelling just fine as an adult. My local coral reefs have returned to health after a major bleeching event that was predicted to be the beginning of the end. Sometimes our catastrophic predictions are wrong, or exaggerated.
https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summar...
Collapsing marine ecosystems are not theoretical risks, they have been happening around the world for decades (if not more).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Examples_and_evide...
Or did you mean "Don't worry, the impact of oxygen level change is exaggerated, because we'll make sure those fish are gone one way or other!"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#Examples_and_evide...
Or did you mean "Don't worry, the impact of oxygen level change is exaggerated, because we'll make sure those fish are gone one way or other!"?
Yes, some fisheries are collapsing in places where they are not properly regulated.
Meanwhile whale numbers are increasing, polar bear numbers are increasing and in my local fishery the fish population is increasing!
Don’t take my comment as saying there are no problems, I’m merely pointing out that telling children “this probably won’t exist when you are an adult” isn’t particularly honest and I don’t think it’s very useful.
Meanwhile whale numbers are increasing, polar bear numbers are increasing and in my local fishery the fish population is increasing!
Don’t take my comment as saying there are no problems, I’m merely pointing out that telling children “this probably won’t exist when you are an adult” isn’t particularly honest and I don’t think it’s very useful.
> polar bear numbers are increasing
Hope they'll flourish when we'll have ice free arctic summer in/before 2030.
Hope they'll flourish when we'll have ice free arctic summer in/before 2030.
Which papers predict that? That’s a new one for me.
Around 2010 I remember reading a prediction of ice free arctic by 2020. It used to go hand in hand with the polar bear panic.
Around 2010 I remember reading a prediction of ice free arctic by 2020. It used to go hand in hand with the polar bear panic.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free...
And with this year's temperatures it might be even sooner.
And with this year's temperatures it might be even sooner.
Thanks for the link. It’s interesting how CNN doesn’t report that 2030 is the bottom of their confidence interval.
They might be correct, but I don’t have much faith. They have essentially done a temp-ice area regression to fit a model to 50 years of data. Thus they rely on the accuracy of the temp predictions of the IPCC models which I also don’t have much faith in. I lost a lot of confidence in them this year, under-predicting warming so significantly. Most climate scientists imply that this error is simply them underestimating anthropogenic warming rather than it being an indication that their models are not particularly accurate. From the climate science community I have heard some suggestions the volcanic eruption last year was to blame for the extra warming, as well as changes to sulphite pollution policies.
I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced.
They might be correct, but I don’t have much faith. They have essentially done a temp-ice area regression to fit a model to 50 years of data. Thus they rely on the accuracy of the temp predictions of the IPCC models which I also don’t have much faith in. I lost a lot of confidence in them this year, under-predicting warming so significantly. Most climate scientists imply that this error is simply them underestimating anthropogenic warming rather than it being an indication that their models are not particularly accurate. From the climate science community I have heard some suggestions the volcanic eruption last year was to blame for the extra warming, as well as changes to sulphite pollution policies.
I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard. When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced.
> I believe the earth is warming, but that much of it is probably due to existing natural trends and that adaptation will not be particularly hard.
That's called denial and hopium.
> When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced
We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
That's called denial and hopium.
> When models can predict El Niño with precision or changes in large scale circulation then I think I will be convinced
We can't predict what local weather will be 3+ days from now. You're being unrealistic, at least.
Haha perhaps, but I don’t think so.
There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution?
And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.
There’s no fundamental reason our climate models can’t have resolution that allows us to see major natural processes. If we can’t confidently predict weather 3 days out at decent resolution, why are we so confident in forecasts of 50 years with a coarse resolution?
And if our models don’t contain important forcing such as sulphite aerosols and volcanic activity, how can be so certain of attribution to GHG? I know people usually start talking about the precautionary principle at this point, but I think a big part of that is being skeptical of the models unless their predictions closely match observation.
I don't think there has ever been a time in all of human history with so many existential threats.
Between catastrophic climate change and resource depletion, AI, the danger of nuclear war, COVID and other potential pandemics, economic insecurity for most of the population, and farmed irrational extremist political movements, we seem to have quite a lot to deal with.
Might as well just have Carrington Event 2.0 and be done with it.
Between catastrophic climate change and resource depletion, AI, the danger of nuclear war, COVID and other potential pandemics, economic insecurity for most of the population, and farmed irrational extremist political movements, we seem to have quite a lot to deal with.
Might as well just have Carrington Event 2.0 and be done with it.
I know I being picky, but nuclear war is the only existential threat there.
It's unlikely that any pandemic would make humans go extinct. Covid showed that isolating population groups is possible, especially if bounded by water (Australia, new Zealand etc). Mass death sure, but not extinction.
Climate change will probably reduce livable spaces (although people already live in extremes like Alaska and Sahara) but humans are adaptable and certain parts will still be temperate. Again huge impact, but not existential.
Sure there's a lot of "other stuff" going on, but honestly it has always been thus. Two world wars for example caused several daily concerns for most of Europe, and much of Asia. Throw in revolutions in Russia and China, and independence for India, plus the technology booms, and life in 1950 was different to 1910.
I could write a whole comment on economics, but again a 2 year blip in inflation (it's down again now) is not going to end anything. Given the economic improvements in Asia over the past 50 years (China, S Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc) "most" of the world is better off than before. There's a long way to go, but its been an upward trend for a long time.
It's unlikely that any pandemic would make humans go extinct. Covid showed that isolating population groups is possible, especially if bounded by water (Australia, new Zealand etc). Mass death sure, but not extinction.
Climate change will probably reduce livable spaces (although people already live in extremes like Alaska and Sahara) but humans are adaptable and certain parts will still be temperate. Again huge impact, but not existential.
Sure there's a lot of "other stuff" going on, but honestly it has always been thus. Two world wars for example caused several daily concerns for most of Europe, and much of Asia. Throw in revolutions in Russia and China, and independence for India, plus the technology booms, and life in 1950 was different to 1910.
I could write a whole comment on economics, but again a 2 year blip in inflation (it's down again now) is not going to end anything. Given the economic improvements in Asia over the past 50 years (China, S Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc) "most" of the world is better off than before. There's a long way to go, but its been an upward trend for a long time.
Here in Australia we regularly talk about the tyranny of distance that impacts us. In Covid, it turned into the world largest moat.
With the rise of ecological blow back, resource scarcity/hoarding, and seeing the seeds of authoritarian policies being planted - I suspect that this moat will be used in future to welcome immigrants with open arms. Those arms being rockets, machine guns and grenades.
A grim future ahead if true.
With the rise of ecological blow back, resource scarcity/hoarding, and seeing the seeds of authoritarian policies being planted - I suspect that this moat will be used in future to welcome immigrants with open arms. Those arms being rockets, machine guns and grenades.
A grim future ahead if true.
Humans will survive. The global civilisation, might not.
The potential huge impact of climate change could very well start the nuclear war. Masses of hungry, broke and desperate people don't do good for politics as we've seen again and again in the past. One can only hope that they turn against corporations and the 1% instead of electing fascists.
COVID was never an existential threat. I'm not aware of any pandemic being that, even smallpox or the black death. Where existential means threatening the existence of the human species.
Even a global nuclear war would not kill every single human being, so by that logic there are no existential threats.
However many of these threats can collapse organised civilisation and push us back to medieval level of development.
However many of these threats can collapse organised civilisation and push us back to medieval level of development.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Actually, the world has never had greater economic security than it does in 2023.
Hope you can eat that.
Ok this conversation can get pretty silly, let's try to avoid that.
Now at 2023 we have lifted more people out of poverty and ill-health in both raw numbers and as a percentage of the population than any time in the planet's history.
Without prescribing anything in so far as dealing with the world's problems, be careful flippantly trading that off. It may not be you, your friends and your family that previously watched their children die and now don't but I don't see that as making this quite frankly stunning achievement as an irrelevance.
https://www.gapminder.org/fw/world-health-chart/
Now at 2023 we have lifted more people out of poverty and ill-health in both raw numbers and as a percentage of the population than any time in the planet's history.
Without prescribing anything in so far as dealing with the world's problems, be careful flippantly trading that off. It may not be you, your friends and your family that previously watched their children die and now don't but I don't see that as making this quite frankly stunning achievement as an irrelevance.
https://www.gapminder.org/fw/world-health-chart/
Yes we have made great progress with maternal and basic health, these are really great and represent real meaningful knowledge and capability gains. However, there are other health trends that are not looking very promising at the moment that take a bit of the shine off.
Poverty has some very definitional issues with the chosen metrics and I am hesitant to actually draw any conclusions on if it has brought net positive human fulfillment.
In any case the whole system is a pretty precarious place at the moment with rapidly closing windows to maintain stability, and if we don't those "stunning achievements" are going not going to persist in a meaningful way.
Poverty has some very definitional issues with the chosen metrics and I am hesitant to actually draw any conclusions on if it has brought net positive human fulfillment.
In any case the whole system is a pretty precarious place at the moment with rapidly closing windows to maintain stability, and if we don't those "stunning achievements" are going not going to persist in a meaningful way.
It is easy to look rich when you are maximizing the credit cards.
It is easy to pull people out of poverty when short term thinking can overshoot beyond long term carrying capacity.
It is easy to pull people out of poverty when short term thinking can overshoot beyond long term carrying capacity.
When the oil is running out, how will you make the fertiliser?
With the billionaires?
Well, you sure as hell can't eat economic insecurity.
It's all a mirage
Acidification is the unavailability to carry hydrogen molecules.
The primary hydrogen carrier in water is oxygen.
Are deoxygenation & acidification different problem, or different slants on the same problem?
The primary hydrogen carrier in water is oxygen.
Are deoxygenation & acidification different problem, or different slants on the same problem?
deoxygenation, and acidification are two different phenomenon, they may influence each other but are not obligated.
im very much inclined to say these are not problems.
these are symptoms of a larger scale problem, namely an atmosphere pushing thermal bounds beyond global buffering capacity,
and CO2 accumulating beyond biospheric buffering ,and regulation.
im very much inclined to say these are not problems.
these are symptoms of a larger scale problem, namely an atmosphere pushing thermal bounds beyond global buffering capacity,
and CO2 accumulating beyond biospheric buffering ,and regulation.
You forgot microplastics.
I don’t think any of these are really that critical: they will become a problem in a few centuries if we do absolutely nothing but will likely be fine.
Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff in places that have a history of low oxygen. It’s good to put some resources towards fixing this, but it’s not useful to think of it as an extinction level problem that we “now have.”
Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff in places that have a history of low oxygen. It’s good to put some resources towards fixing this, but it’s not useful to think of it as an extinction level problem that we “now have.”
Wow, you have the entirety of the world ecosystem, from deep ocean currents and biology, to the entire 70% of the world's surface oceans, to the jungle rainforests, arctic/antarctic ice, atmospheric changes, solar radiation variation, historical records, 100% accurate computer simulations/predictors, all nailed down?
All the interaction of species, effects of (mass) extinctions? Invasive species? Habitat destruction, soil loss from farming, AND you can predict the impacts of human industry, economics, and technology change?
You have ALL THAT NAILED DOWN, internet expert?
Forgive me if I don't take your assurances about that as being "no big deal" with any iota of reliability.
There are literally 20 major scientific domains that all are in lockstep agreement about anthropogenic global warming, from geologists, atmospheric scientists, basic chemistry and physics, oceanographers, biologists, archaeologists, historians. A massive collection of scientific inquiry that basically all ends at the same conclusions. It's quite literally thousands of PhDs, maybe tens of thousands.
Of course, all of them don't know as much as you, internet guy.
All the interaction of species, effects of (mass) extinctions? Invasive species? Habitat destruction, soil loss from farming, AND you can predict the impacts of human industry, economics, and technology change?
You have ALL THAT NAILED DOWN, internet expert?
Forgive me if I don't take your assurances about that as being "no big deal" with any iota of reliability.
There are literally 20 major scientific domains that all are in lockstep agreement about anthropogenic global warming, from geologists, atmospheric scientists, basic chemistry and physics, oceanographers, biologists, archaeologists, historians. A massive collection of scientific inquiry that basically all ends at the same conclusions. It's quite literally thousands of PhDs, maybe tens of thousands.
Of course, all of them don't know as much as you, internet guy.
Yeah I’ve read a lot actually, which is why I’ve changed my mind about the severity of these problems. Most predictions are just conjecture with no real link to good models. I’m always happy to read more papers if you know of any good ones. All the ones I’ve read on low ocean oxygen have convinced me it isn’t a very critical problem.
Just a few things you get wrong: thinking models are 100% accurate, thinking scientists have everything “nailed down” and assuming that I don’t know enough to back up my opinion.
Just a few things you get wrong: thinking models are 100% accurate, thinking scientists have everything “nailed down” and assuming that I don’t know enough to back up my opinion.
Actually, I know you don't. The complexity involved exceeds the intellectual ability of a single person, no matter how arrogant they are.
Because you, single person, do not have the ability to ingest all the data, do not have access to the necessary supercomputers, do not have the decades of time to write and adapt the simulation software, do not have the PhDs.
You are simply one brain. Who very most certainly does not have the accuracy of the current models (yours is FAR less reliable, because it is your lone opinion), you think you have everything nailed down to brazenly assert "it won't be that bad", and well, you are just one dumb internet person, so I KNOW you don't know enough to back up your opinion.
If you followed the simulations alone, you'd see that they have had a surprisingly good track, even the late-1990s models are doing disturbingly well (which were more pessimistic than what the climate scientists wanted to say back then).
Ocean acidification and the potential collapse of oceanic phytoplankton should scare the living shit out of you. Fishery health aren't really the concern if oxygen production from phytoplankton drops. The inability to eat sushi is far down the list from "inability to breathe". Hint: phytoplankton produce 70% of the oxygen we breathe, and our society is actively participating in Russian Roulette on a global scale to see if we kill ourselves with that, among other "fun games" that "you aren't concerned about".
Because you, single person, do not have the ability to ingest all the data, do not have access to the necessary supercomputers, do not have the decades of time to write and adapt the simulation software, do not have the PhDs.
You are simply one brain. Who very most certainly does not have the accuracy of the current models (yours is FAR less reliable, because it is your lone opinion), you think you have everything nailed down to brazenly assert "it won't be that bad", and well, you are just one dumb internet person, so I KNOW you don't know enough to back up your opinion.
If you followed the simulations alone, you'd see that they have had a surprisingly good track, even the late-1990s models are doing disturbingly well (which were more pessimistic than what the climate scientists wanted to say back then).
Ocean acidification and the potential collapse of oceanic phytoplankton should scare the living shit out of you. Fishery health aren't really the concern if oxygen production from phytoplankton drops. The inability to eat sushi is far down the list from "inability to breathe". Hint: phytoplankton produce 70% of the oxygen we breathe, and our society is actively participating in Russian Roulette on a global scale to see if we kill ourselves with that, among other "fun games" that "you aren't concerned about".
You are also one brain. I look at the results from other scientists in the exact same way you do. Just because I don’t build my own climate models doesn’t mean my opinion is incorrect. I build models as a job, so I have a decent understanding of what to look for in a good model.
In fact I follows many scientists who do all the things you mention and who agree with me. Some even think climate change might be good overall! Most skeptics think that it is real and that it is bad, but that it is not something worth panicking about.
As I said before, I’m always open to learning more. What predictions frighten you the most? You mention ocean acidification, when do scientists predict that this problem will become existential?
In fact I follows many scientists who do all the things you mention and who agree with me. Some even think climate change might be good overall! Most skeptics think that it is real and that it is bad, but that it is not something worth panicking about.
As I said before, I’m always open to learning more. What predictions frighten you the most? You mention ocean acidification, when do scientists predict that this problem will become existential?
That was misguided and rude. Please follow the comment guidelines.
> Take ocean deoxygenation: it happens locally due to fertiliser runoff
Two types, not one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
Two types, not one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_deoxygenation#Types_and_...
Thanks for the info. I think my point stands for open ocean deoxygenation. It is a natural process that global warming makes worse. The critical point is how much worse? Is it now an existential risk or just slightly worse than before?
I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions.
I wouldn’t claim I have knowledge that it’s not a problem, but I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations. Until then, I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions.
> a natural process that global warming makes worse
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm3468
Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-devastating-greenland-antarcti...
'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago
https://www.commondreams.org/news/ocean-warming-study
the planet has accumulated as much heat in the past 15 years as it did in the previous 45 years, the majority of the excess heat has been absorbed by the oceans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-h...
A technical chart in a chapter of the latest UN climate assessment laid out the unfathomable heat gain. Between 1971 and 2018, the ocean had gained 396 zettajoules of heat.
How much heat is that? Scientists have calculated it is the equivalent energy of more than 25bn Hiroshima atomic bombs. And that heat gain is accelerating.
A study in January found the ocean gained 10 ZJ more in 2022 than the year before – enough heat to boil 700m kettles every second.
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-climate-ocean-plankton-microbe...
Warming climate could turn ocean plankton microbes into carbon emitters
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330316398_How_fast_...
How fast are the oceans warming? - Observational records of ocean heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/world/four-climate-charts...
Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is right now
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-lev...
Antarctic sea ice levels dive in 'five-sigma event', as experts flag worsening consequences for planet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
Scientists detect sign that a crucial ocean current is near collapse
> I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the...
https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y...
"I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was still heading for collapse. ... I found that the scenarios aligned closely with observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for society to change course."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re...
"We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive."
> I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions
Ok :)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm3468
Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-devastating-greenland-antarcti...
'Devastating' melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago
https://www.commondreams.org/news/ocean-warming-study
the planet has accumulated as much heat in the past 15 years as it did in the previous 45 years, the majority of the excess heat has been absorbed by the oceans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-h...
A technical chart in a chapter of the latest UN climate assessment laid out the unfathomable heat gain. Between 1971 and 2018, the ocean had gained 396 zettajoules of heat.
How much heat is that? Scientists have calculated it is the equivalent energy of more than 25bn Hiroshima atomic bombs. And that heat gain is accelerating.
A study in January found the ocean gained 10 ZJ more in 2022 than the year before – enough heat to boil 700m kettles every second.
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-climate-ocean-plankton-microbe...
Warming climate could turn ocean plankton microbes into carbon emitters
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330316398_How_fast_...
How fast are the oceans warming? - Observational records of ocean heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/17/world/four-climate-charts...
Four alarming charts that show just how extreme the climate is right now
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-lev...
Antarctic sea ice levels dive in 'five-sigma event', as experts flag worsening consequences for planet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/2...
Scientists detect sign that a crucial ocean current is near collapse
> I’d like to see a model where it becomes a problem and for that model to predict observations
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-16/revisiting-the...
https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/dam/advisory/en/pdfs/2021/y...
"I conducted a data update to Limits to Growth (LtG), best known from the 1972 bestseller that forecasted a scenario of global societal collapse occurring around the present time if humanity did not alter its priorities. Empirical data comparisons since then indicated that the world was still heading for collapse. ... I found that the scenarios aligned closely with observed global data, which is a testament to the LtG work done decades ago. The two scenarios aligning most closely indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, which puts into question the usability of continuous growth as humanity’s goal in the 21st century. Both scenarios also indicate subsequent declines, but only one—the scenario in which declines are caused by pollution, including greenhouse gas pollution—depicts a collapse pattern. The scenario with the smallest declines aligned least with empirical data, however, absolute differences were rarely big and sometimes insignificant. This suggests that it’s almost, but not yet, too late for society to change course."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332655753_Limits_Re...
"We unravel the arguments that have raged for forty years in its aftermath and explore more recent findings which relate to the original hypothesis. There is unsettling evidence that society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living standards. Detailed recent studies suggests that production of some key resources may only be decades away. Certain other limits to growth – less visible in the 1972 report – present equally pressing challenges to modern society. We highlight, in particular, recent work on our proximity to ‘planetary boundaries’ and illustrate this through the challenge of meeting the Paris Agreement on climate change. We also explore the economic challenge of a ‘secular stagnation’. If the Club of Rome is right, the next few decades are decisive."
> I just mentally file this away under doomer predictions
Ok :)
Thanks for the links, I really respect engagement with argument.
I see a lot of evidence that the planet has been/is warming, but still see lots of issues with the attribution / prediction / catastrophe papers. Take your KPMG report: it has lots of predictions of catastrophic trends, but cannot be used to make an actual prediction since "he LtG scenarios were thus not meant to produce point predictions, but rather to help us understand the behavior of systems in the world over time." "Although the steepness of a scenario’s decline cannot be used for predictive purposes (Meadows et al., 2004), it can be said that BAU2 shows a clear collapse pattern"
I believe the Lakatosian solution to the demarcation problem is best: judge a scientific programme by its progressiveness over time. Evidence of a progressive programme comes about through repeated confirmation of theory against evidence without adding arbitrary auxilliary hypothesis. I worry that some corners of climate change science are degenerate: when a model doesn't match predictions there is always an explanation using an auxillary hypothesis ("there are less fires than we predicted, but we now use a different metric. And our new metric is getting worse!!", "the record temps didn't appear in our model because we didn't include X, but will come eventually", "the coral didn't die because Y, but will die eventually", "the ice caps haven't melted yet because Z, but will eventually"). I'm not saying these auxillary hypothesis are necessarily wrong, just that they are used as excuses for wrong predictions. This years record heat was an opportunity for climate scientists to say: "see! We predicted this in 99% of our models, now you should trust us", instead we got "our models missed this, but because we didn't include X,Y,Z; so you should still trust the models." Even worse X,Y,Z have been known about for years so either the modeller thought they weren't important and was wrong, or thought they were important but didn't include the. Both scenarios worry me and feed my skepticism.
I see a lot of evidence that the planet has been/is warming, but still see lots of issues with the attribution / prediction / catastrophe papers. Take your KPMG report: it has lots of predictions of catastrophic trends, but cannot be used to make an actual prediction since "he LtG scenarios were thus not meant to produce point predictions, but rather to help us understand the behavior of systems in the world over time." "Although the steepness of a scenario’s decline cannot be used for predictive purposes (Meadows et al., 2004), it can be said that BAU2 shows a clear collapse pattern"
I believe the Lakatosian solution to the demarcation problem is best: judge a scientific programme by its progressiveness over time. Evidence of a progressive programme comes about through repeated confirmation of theory against evidence without adding arbitrary auxilliary hypothesis. I worry that some corners of climate change science are degenerate: when a model doesn't match predictions there is always an explanation using an auxillary hypothesis ("there are less fires than we predicted, but we now use a different metric. And our new metric is getting worse!!", "the record temps didn't appear in our model because we didn't include X, but will come eventually", "the coral didn't die because Y, but will die eventually", "the ice caps haven't melted yet because Z, but will eventually"). I'm not saying these auxillary hypothesis are necessarily wrong, just that they are used as excuses for wrong predictions. This years record heat was an opportunity for climate scientists to say: "see! We predicted this in 99% of our models, now you should trust us", instead we got "our models missed this, but because we didn't include X,Y,Z; so you should still trust the models." Even worse X,Y,Z have been known about for years so either the modeller thought they weren't important and was wrong, or thought they were important but didn't include the. Both scenarios worry me and feed my skepticism.
Just unlock gen 4 nuclear.
> As ocean oxygen levels dip, fish face an uncertain future
"An Uncertain future"? Seriously? The word you're looking for is "death".
No sense in couching climate disaster in metaphorical soft words. There is going to be death, and a whole lot of death of all species, including humans.
"An Uncertain future"? Seriously? The word you're looking for is "death".
No sense in couching climate disaster in metaphorical soft words. There is going to be death, and a whole lot of death of all species, including humans.
The shareholders believe alarmist language is best avoided
Looks like we are the paper clip optimising narrow AI we’ve all been afraid of after all…
We don’t make paper clips though, we’ve optimised to make money and turn everything into it.
So ashamed to be part of of it,
We don’t make paper clips though, we’ve optimised to make money and turn everything into it.
So ashamed to be part of of it,
Line go up.
Everything else can be sacrificed as long as the line keeps going up (GDP, stock market, revenue, profit, share price - take your pick). No politician will risk doing anything that makes the line go down even if it boosts 'non line' metrics like happiness, health, social connections, free time, any environmental measures, home ownership, min wage)
Everything else can be sacrificed as long as the line keeps going up (GDP, stock market, revenue, profit, share price - take your pick). No politician will risk doing anything that makes the line go down even if it boosts 'non line' metrics like happiness, health, social connections, free time, any environmental measures, home ownership, min wage)
Many science fiction authors have made surprisingly incisive contemporary critiques in the forms of allegory and metaphor. Bostrom is unusual mainly in that he doesn't seem to know when he is doing it.
Asimov’s The Gods Themselves description of economics reads sort of like Onion headlines of today but from fifty years ago.
> We don’t make paper clips though, we’ve optimised to make money and turn everything into it.
Paperclips are at least real objects.
Money doesnt even exist if everyone isndead, its not real.
Paperclips are at least real objects.
Money doesnt even exist if everyone isndead, its not real.
There is a great podcast series called 'The Great Simplification' by Nate Hagens. It is basically just a series of interviews with people about the predicaments of our times. Nate has been working on this theory of 'the great simplification' being a coming event when our monetary systems catch up with the ecological systems that actually govern our world. That there is a lot of credit embedded within our very monetary system that cannot be redeemed long term.
That we have issued credits for energy and materials that we cannot actually claim at the volumes needed.
It is a compelling idea and that looks fairly plausible. Nate does a great job of walking the fine line between pessimism and optimism, something which Cory Doctoro describes as both side being defeatist.
That we have issued credits for energy and materials that we cannot actually claim at the volumes needed.
It is a compelling idea and that looks fairly plausible. Nate does a great job of walking the fine line between pessimism and optimism, something which Cory Doctoro describes as both side being defeatist.
Fiat money only has value because we accept that it does, corporation stocks are only valued what they are because we believe they're valuable. It's all hardly based on anything real anymore, it's just recursive speculation. The world's billionaires have so much made up stock money that they can borrow against, but never use a significant amount of because it fundamentally does not exist. The only thing that's stopping the whole system from imploding is maintaining the constant imaginary growth. And climate change will forcibly shatter the illusion eventually.
There is this theory that we've peaked with our net energy extraction in the 1970s, and the graphs that start to diverge that year sure are plentiful and puzzling. It may just be that the last 5 decades have just been us deluding ourselves into believing there's value where very little or none exists, and we only keep afloat because there have been marginal efficiency gains along the way.
There is this theory that we've peaked with our net energy extraction in the 1970s, and the graphs that start to diverge that year sure are plentiful and puzzling. It may just be that the last 5 decades have just been us deluding ourselves into believing there's value where very little or none exists, and we only keep afloat because there have been marginal efficiency gains along the way.
I just had a curious realization.. Money is a representation of trust, it says so on the dollar bill, that the piece of paper can be traded for something at the US treasury, and we all trust this to be true. Indeed "credit" means "trust". So I wonder if we've been wanting to collect bigger and bigger amounts of "trust" because, hey, who doesn't like being trusted? And funny how people can't see when just looking at your briefcase or bank account full of money if you got your money through scamming people (exploiting their trust), so indeed this decoupling has been harmful (if you're a decent guy but you're homeless, people don't look at you twice, if you're Elon Musk people treat you nice...)
I'm starting to accept that we are done for. The only thing that gives me hope is that maybe some alien civilization out there in the universe successfully avoided this great filter.
The Earth seems to want to evolve towards a giant tropical rainforest and keeps getting smacked by one disaster after another. This time it's just an infestation of apes that will knock out some unknown chunk of life and probably gobble up and pave over half the surface before collapsing under its own weight.
Speculative fiction of Lilith’a Brood by Octavia Butler comes to mind, it was good but so bleak I had to stop in second book.
I think we're a little better than that. No one actually wants a world where everything is turned into financial statements. The tragedy of the commons is a bug, whereas wholesale conversion to paper clips for Clippy is a feature.
So I think we are this, even if we don't want to be. We just don't have the (whatever it is) to not do it.
I think where we've made the mistake was deferring everything to technological solutions, which arguably created the problem in the first place.
This is not to say technology won't help, or even eventually solve it, but we should work harder on the people and governmental problems.
I think where we've made the mistake was deferring everything to technological solutions, which arguably created the problem in the first place.
This is not to say technology won't help, or even eventually solve it, but we should work harder on the people and governmental problems.
But when you think of people and governments, the range of beliefs and behavioral choices is enormous. Certainly some people and some societies and governments have more of (whatever it is) than others, if it is the capacity to prioritize long-term, multigenerational self-preservation and quality of life over short-term gains. Money, in the purest sense as a means of exchange, isn't the culprit; the trouble is the culture that (a) generates wealth via extraction and (b) wastes it on immediate consumption, rather than investing in a sustainable future. I'd even argue that "money" is a red herring. What we're really paperclipping is mostly-disposable stuff. In the long term, we'll probably be remember for being really good at turning a deep geological layer of carbon into a shallower one of plastic. But it's worth saying that we are 7 billion or so individuals capable of making decisions, with vastly different aims and priorities, rather than one monolithic thing obsessed with a particular shiny object.
[deleted]
This is a point Daniel Schmachtenberger has argued. We worry about rouge AI's and the paper clip optimizer problem and yet that is essentially the path our current economic system operates on.
We've optimized so hard we can make money out of negative money.
I tried to get newspapers to report on it and they kept telling me they already covered ocean acidification.
Iirc the research regarding what kind of emotion evoking news gets most attention shows it's mainly awe and anger. Sadness doesn't get you very far, so there's a direct incentive to not report on any collapse related stuff we can't really do anything about anymore, since it won't get shared at all.
Could spin it as an angry piece condemning the fossil fuel lobby, but that probably gets you cut off the next time there's a burning oil rig to report on.
Could spin it as an angry piece condemning the fossil fuel lobby, but that probably gets you cut off the next time there's a burning oil rig to report on.
> that probably gets you cut off the next time there's a burning oil rig to report on.
More likely, the money from the expensive green-washing ads they buy is cut off.
Anyway, I'm sick of profit motive being an excuse for media complicity in atrocity.
More likely, the money from the expensive green-washing ads they buy is cut off.
Anyway, I'm sick of profit motive being an excuse for media complicity in atrocity.
You know how a lot of people see those in the past as being ignorant and we wonder how they could not see the silly things they did... the older I get, the more that is how I see nowadays.
Folks will look back on us in decades/centuries from now and go "what were they thinking? They knew what was happening, knew what had to be done but then didn't do it".
There are two books by William T Volleman, the Carbon Ideologies series. The first few pages are written to the people who would potentially read these books in 200 years trying to explain how the people of today are not much different than they are. It was a wise move to frame these things like that.
Folks will look back on us in decades/centuries from now and go "what were they thinking? They knew what was happening, knew what had to be done but then didn't do it".
There are two books by William T Volleman, the Carbon Ideologies series. The first few pages are written to the people who would potentially read these books in 200 years trying to explain how the people of today are not much different than they are. It was a wise move to frame these things like that.
I mean what, hindsight is 20/20? People have always been and will always be self-centred and short-sighted. Considering that, while having limited info plus strong preconceptions and it's not really surprising that most decisions ever made have been terrible.
I've had the same thought; thanks for the book recommendation.
How did fish manage during the climatic optimum [1] some 8500 to 5500 years ago when it was between 1.5°C and 4°C warmer than it is now, let alone during the previous interglacial periods [2] which were markedly warmer than the Holocene (i.e. the current interglacial period)? If there was a marked reduction in ocean life due to reduced oxygen levels that should be visible in fossil records. If there was no such reduction then why would there be one now?
Increased CO₂ has led to a markedly "greener" planet [3] - the increase was enough to cover the US twice in vegetation by 2016. Those plants produce oxygen during photosynthesis (6 CO₂ + 6 H₂O → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6 O₂) which is released to the environment (air or water) during daylight hours leading to a higher oxygen concentration. I suspect this balance between higher atmospheric CO₂ which leads to an increase in vegetation which then leads to an increase in oxygen production is what kept ocean life from succumbing due to oxygen deprivation during those periods when the average temperature was much higher than it is now. If this happened then, why would it not happen now?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#/media/F...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
Increased CO₂ has led to a markedly "greener" planet [3] - the increase was enough to cover the US twice in vegetation by 2016. Those plants produce oxygen during photosynthesis (6 CO₂ + 6 H₂O → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6 O₂) which is released to the environment (air or water) during daylight hours leading to a higher oxygen concentration. I suspect this balance between higher atmospheric CO₂ which leads to an increase in vegetation which then leads to an increase in oxygen production is what kept ocean life from succumbing due to oxygen deprivation during those periods when the average temperature was much higher than it is now. If this happened then, why would it not happen now?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#/media/F...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
> How did fish manage during the climatic optimum [1] some 8500 to 5500 years ago when it was between 1.5°C and 4°C warmer than it is now
It was not 1.5—4 °C warmer. Mean air temperatures around the peak of the HCO were less than 1 °C elevated relative to preindustrial temperatures and were below last decade's mean air temperature. And those aren't ocean temperatures. Regionally, surface waters around the great barrier Reef was ~1 °C elevated relative to modern day.
Anyway, the answer to your question is the rate of change since was much slower than recent temperature /pH changes. Populations, even sessile ones like corals can more successfully redistribute and move toward the poles to find optimal thermal conditions with a slower rate of change. And we are also putting the ocean under a few other confounding stresses like overfishing, eutrophication, acidification, coastal development and habitat loss, etc, which is novel territory relative to previous climactic shifts.
Also I'll note what might be a blip in the geological record in terms of fossil richness could still have profound consequences for species on which we depend on for economic livelihood and food security, e.g. say you have a well managed fishery harvested at close to maximum sustainable yield. If conditions change such that the environment rapidly shifts to support only 80% of the original carrying capacity due to growing OMZs, the fishery now needs to be managed such that it will support a lot less jobs and produces less food (or, mgmt doesn't adapt and the stock gets severely overharvested, and then the job and production loss necessarily follow).
> I suspect this balance between higher atmospheric CO₂ which leads to an increase in vegetation which then leads to an increase in oxygen production is what kept ocean life from succumbing due to oxygen deprivation.
The article mentions why this suspicion is wrong. In fact, proliferation of the main oxygen producing taxa in the ocean is one of the primary mechanisms that exacerbates oxygen minimum zones. Phytoplankton blooms, then dies, sinks, and get eaten by microbes that consume oxygen.
It was not 1.5—4 °C warmer. Mean air temperatures around the peak of the HCO were less than 1 °C elevated relative to preindustrial temperatures and were below last decade's mean air temperature. And those aren't ocean temperatures. Regionally, surface waters around the great barrier Reef was ~1 °C elevated relative to modern day.
Anyway, the answer to your question is the rate of change since was much slower than recent temperature /pH changes. Populations, even sessile ones like corals can more successfully redistribute and move toward the poles to find optimal thermal conditions with a slower rate of change. And we are also putting the ocean under a few other confounding stresses like overfishing, eutrophication, acidification, coastal development and habitat loss, etc, which is novel territory relative to previous climactic shifts.
Also I'll note what might be a blip in the geological record in terms of fossil richness could still have profound consequences for species on which we depend on for economic livelihood and food security, e.g. say you have a well managed fishery harvested at close to maximum sustainable yield. If conditions change such that the environment rapidly shifts to support only 80% of the original carrying capacity due to growing OMZs, the fishery now needs to be managed such that it will support a lot less jobs and produces less food (or, mgmt doesn't adapt and the stock gets severely overharvested, and then the job and production loss necessarily follow).
> I suspect this balance between higher atmospheric CO₂ which leads to an increase in vegetation which then leads to an increase in oxygen production is what kept ocean life from succumbing due to oxygen deprivation.
The article mentions why this suspicion is wrong. In fact, proliferation of the main oxygen producing taxa in the ocean is one of the primary mechanisms that exacerbates oxygen minimum zones. Phytoplankton blooms, then dies, sinks, and get eaten by microbes that consume oxygen.
The climatic optimum you refer to was cooler than today. From the wiki you reference:
A study in 2020 estimated that the average global temperature during the warmest 200 year period of the HCO, around 6,500 years ago, was around 0.7 °C warmer than the mean for nineteenth century AD, immediately before the Industrial Revolution, and 0.3 °C cooler than the average for 2011-2019.
A study in 2020 estimated that the average global temperature during the warmest 200 year period of the HCO, around 6,500 years ago, was around 0.7 °C warmer than the mean for nineteenth century AD, immediately before the Industrial Revolution, and 0.3 °C cooler than the average for 2011-2019.
> How did fish manage during the climatic optimum [1] some 8500 to 5500 years ago when it was between 1.5°C and 4°C warmer than it is now
From your wikipedia link:
---8<---
A study in 2020 estimated that the average global temperature during the warmest 200 year period of the HCO, around 6,500 years ago, was around 0.7 °C warmer than the mean for nineteenth century AD.
The HCO consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[8] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.[9] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes.
---8<---
So, the effect then was localized to the waters where there's more oxygen anyway, and having temperature going in different directions in different parts of Europe and at a much slower rate than current changes, would make it easier for the fish to migrate? Unclear how water temperatures behaved at different depths though.
From your wikipedia link:
---8<---
A study in 2020 estimated that the average global temperature during the warmest 200 year period of the HCO, around 6,500 years ago, was around 0.7 °C warmer than the mean for nineteenth century AD.
The HCO consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[8] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.[9] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes.
---8<---
So, the effect then was localized to the waters where there's more oxygen anyway, and having temperature going in different directions in different parts of Europe and at a much slower rate than current changes, would make it easier for the fish to migrate? Unclear how water temperatures behaved at different depths though.
The same is true for the current warming where the largest increases are seen in the northern winters so that does not affect the comparison.
Instead of picking on one section in a Wikipedia article it would be interesting to know what exactly is different "this time" compared to earlier warmer periods, both the climatic optimum as well as e.g. the Viking and Roman warm periods, let alone those during earlier interglacials. Just stating "now it is different" is not very convincing.
Instead of picking on one section in a Wikipedia article it would be interesting to know what exactly is different "this time" compared to earlier warmer periods, both the climatic optimum as well as e.g. the Viking and Roman warm periods, let alone those during earlier interglacials. Just stating "now it is different" is not very convincing.
In Scandinavian regions, at the very least, the Viking warm periods were not as warm as today; fresh evidence suggests that they were less warm than many have stated:
Tree rings reveal that it has not been this warm in the past 1,200 years
AUGUST 3, 2023: https://phys.org/news/2023-08-tree-reveal-years.html
Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06176-4
Tree rings reveal that it has not been this warm in the past 1,200 years
AUGUST 3, 2023: https://phys.org/news/2023-08-tree-reveal-years.html
Fennoscandian tree-ring anatomy shows a warmer modern than medieval climate
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06176-4
99% of the time when people ask "how did ancient people manage to live without doctors", or whatever, you will find out that they didnt manage at all.
Life did not manage sudden changes of climate, there yave been 6 mass extinctions. 99% of spieces that have ever existed are now exticlnct and we are on an express to join them
Life did not manage sudden changes of climate, there yave been 6 mass extinctions. 99% of spieces that have ever existed are now exticlnct and we are on an express to join them
I am very interested in using tech to help the ocean. Does anyone have ideas for technical solutions to this?
Yes.
1. stop overfishing by switching to plant based diets
2. stop fishing ... even fish we don't fish, but decimate (as bycatch) will rebound
3. stop fishing ... there won't be as much plastic to entangle fish, mammals and turtles (49% of great pacific garbage patch is fishing nets)
4. stop animal ag ... minimize agricultural runoff from farms and fields to stop creating dead zones in the ocean
5. stop animal ag ... use technology to reforest pastures and store all excessive carbon in them
6. reform agriculture ... use technology to improve ag methods and improve our soils, storing even more carbon in them
7. stop fossil fuels
8. give nature time to repair itself
9. enjoy healthy ecosystems, saved for future generations
Or explain the scorched earth to your children.
1. stop overfishing by switching to plant based diets
2. stop fishing ... even fish we don't fish, but decimate (as bycatch) will rebound
3. stop fishing ... there won't be as much plastic to entangle fish, mammals and turtles (49% of great pacific garbage patch is fishing nets)
4. stop animal ag ... minimize agricultural runoff from farms and fields to stop creating dead zones in the ocean
5. stop animal ag ... use technology to reforest pastures and store all excessive carbon in them
6. reform agriculture ... use technology to improve ag methods and improve our soils, storing even more carbon in them
7. stop fossil fuels
8. give nature time to repair itself
9. enjoy healthy ecosystems, saved for future generations
Or explain the scorched earth to your children.
> 1. stop overfishing by switching to plant based diets
Switching to fish raised in fish farms in the open ocean / fresh water fish raised in farms (which are often local) should already be a large improvement, even if it isn't optimal, especially right now when those captive fish are fed fish caught in open waters.
Also hope you like mussels and clams, because raising those in farms has little ecological impact and might actually reduce net CO2 by sequestering it in their shells.
Switching to fish raised in fish farms in the open ocean / fresh water fish raised in farms (which are often local) should already be a large improvement, even if it isn't optimal, especially right now when those captive fish are fed fish caught in open waters.
Also hope you like mussels and clams, because raising those in farms has little ecological impact and might actually reduce net CO2 by sequestering it in their shells.
Given that mussels and clams filter and clean the water, I'll pass.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36992897
Plants win again! ;)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36992897
Plants win again! ;)
Ocean electrolytic deacidification is interesting. CO2 dissolved in the ocean makes it more acidic, which disrupts marine biology and slows down further CO2 absorption. You can extract acid from ocean water using electrolysis, raising the pH back to natural levels. This requires energy input, but could be more cost-effective than direct CO2 capture. It may be able to pay for itself by selling the acid for industrial use.
https://www.ebbcarbon.com is one company building it.
https://www.ebbcarbon.com is one company building it.
I think the best bet is to figure out how to get desalination plants to also scrub CO2 and lithium from seawater. With government subsidies, it might actually turn a profit, and we'll need to do all three of those things anyway.
(Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere would also work, but would take longer to address ocean acidification.)
(Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere would also work, but would take longer to address ocean acidification.)
We would need an immense number of such factories. Just lookup how much is already in the atmosphere, and how much are those technologies able to capture.
This is a feel-good technology, something to placate the population that something is being done.
We have better factories. They're called trees.
This is a feel-good technology, something to placate the population that something is being done.
We have better factories. They're called trees.
In the movie biodome they picked up all the cigarettes and made a kickass air filter. Presumably something like that might work.
This will do us in a handful of years. if you think there’s enough ship to push people migrating to places where they can still get protein back into the ocean or flimsy border fences will stop things, you’ll be in for a surprise.
Weird this was syndicated onto BBC also
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36236444
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36236444
They've been doing it for a while: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.com+%22This+artic...
What are the implications for phytoplankton?
How is that solar shade coming along?[10]
A solar shade would merely vault acidification ahead of anoxification on the shitlist of horrible things we're doing to our oceans.
I think a (dis)info campaign touting the toxins and pollutants in fish could be a major environmental win. Humans have destroyed huge amounts of ocean life, and with fish populations already devastated, climate change is going to push many species over the brink to extinct.
I feel like - even if requires pseudoscientific explanations or bald-faced lies - it would be a net good for the world if people thought there is a chance eating fish could kill them. Alarmism over heavy metal accumulation happening at increasing rates, fish absorbing pesticides and poisoning people, stuff like that. Idk if it's happening, but I feel like it would be good for the environment if people believed that.
(disclaimer: i don't enjoy the flavor of fish anyways, so my cost-benefit of this is different than most peoples.)
I feel like - even if requires pseudoscientific explanations or bald-faced lies - it would be a net good for the world if people thought there is a chance eating fish could kill them. Alarmism over heavy metal accumulation happening at increasing rates, fish absorbing pesticides and poisoning people, stuff like that. Idk if it's happening, but I feel like it would be good for the environment if people believed that.
(disclaimer: i don't enjoy the flavor of fish anyways, so my cost-benefit of this is different than most peoples.)
No disinformation campaigns are necessary.
Fish do indeed often contain heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper), PCBs, dioxins, and furans, as well as microplastics.
Young dolphins are dying because the mother's milk may be poisonous for the same reason.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-toxins-mother-young-european-d...
Banned toxins passed from mother to young in European dolphins
https://www.poisoningchildren.com/blog/2014/02/05/bioaccumul...
Bioaccumulation and Dead Baby Dolphins
"Because female dolphins off-load most of their toxic exposure to their first-born calf, their levels after sexual maturity are lower than males; but a very high percentage of first-borns die"
"It is not astonishing that native women in the Arctic Circle, who eat high levels of marine mammals, pass these chemicals on to their babies with dire effects"
"Childbirth and breastfeeding are some of the few ways the body can rid itself of persistent chemicals. It is usually still best to breastfeed, but children who are breastfed continue to inherit the mother’s exposures, as shown in a study of testicular cancer in Denmark and Finland"
Btw, human and cow milk has similar problems.
Fish do indeed often contain heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper), PCBs, dioxins, and furans, as well as microplastics.
Young dolphins are dying because the mother's milk may be poisonous for the same reason.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-toxins-mother-young-european-d...
Banned toxins passed from mother to young in European dolphins
https://www.poisoningchildren.com/blog/2014/02/05/bioaccumul...
Bioaccumulation and Dead Baby Dolphins
"Because female dolphins off-load most of their toxic exposure to their first-born calf, their levels after sexual maturity are lower than males; but a very high percentage of first-borns die"
"It is not astonishing that native women in the Arctic Circle, who eat high levels of marine mammals, pass these chemicals on to their babies with dire effects"
"Childbirth and breastfeeding are some of the few ways the body can rid itself of persistent chemicals. It is usually still best to breastfeed, but children who are breastfed continue to inherit the mother’s exposures, as shown in a study of testicular cancer in Denmark and Finland"
Btw, human and cow milk has similar problems.
Ah, so just needs an awareness campaign! Even more of a clear moral win then if it doesn't require deception.
(also, yikes and tragic)
(also, yikes and tragic)
> Ah, so just needs an awareness campaign!
and machine gun
and machine gun
At that point it would be better to supply the demand for fish with fish farms where they are bred to be eaten rather than pulling fish from the ocean. You could (truthfully) advertise as environmentally friendly, you would probably turn a profit, you actually would have fewer toxins than ocean fish, and ocean fish would be proportionally fished less. Much more straightforward of a process than conspiring/bribing countless people to spread disinformation and giving credit to conspiracy theorists.
Still few problems with this.
- intensive fish farming can lead to environmental issues, such as water pollution from fish waste, excessive use of antibiotics and chemicals, and the depletion of wild fish stocks used for fish feed
- some farmed fish species require a substantial amount of wild-caught fish to produce a relatively small amount of farmed fish
- the conversion of natural habitats like mangroves and wetlands into fish farms can lead to habitat destruction and loss of critical ecosystems that support various species
- in densely packed fish farms, diseases spread rapidly among fish populations, leading to mass mortality events. The use of antibiotics to control diseases can also contribute to antibiotic resistance, posing risks to human health
- introducing non-native or genetically modified fish into local ecosystems can disrupt the balance of the ecosystem and lead to unintended consequences
We have to switch to plant based diets.
It seems to me that nothing else will stop the environmental destruction, in this case overfishing, which alone threatens us with empty oceans in 2040's.
And it would solve the problem with warming oceans too.
Rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, together with a switch to a plant-based diet, would free up a land area the size of Africa. When reforested, this area would store so much carbon that we'd be able to store our entire 1.5C carbon budget in those forests and initiate a new "little ice age."
- intensive fish farming can lead to environmental issues, such as water pollution from fish waste, excessive use of antibiotics and chemicals, and the depletion of wild fish stocks used for fish feed
- some farmed fish species require a substantial amount of wild-caught fish to produce a relatively small amount of farmed fish
- the conversion of natural habitats like mangroves and wetlands into fish farms can lead to habitat destruction and loss of critical ecosystems that support various species
- in densely packed fish farms, diseases spread rapidly among fish populations, leading to mass mortality events. The use of antibiotics to control diseases can also contribute to antibiotic resistance, posing risks to human health
- introducing non-native or genetically modified fish into local ecosystems can disrupt the balance of the ecosystem and lead to unintended consequences
We have to switch to plant based diets.
It seems to me that nothing else will stop the environmental destruction, in this case overfishing, which alone threatens us with empty oceans in 2040's.
And it would solve the problem with warming oceans too.
Rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, together with a switch to a plant-based diet, would free up a land area the size of Africa. When reforested, this area would store so much carbon that we'd be able to store our entire 1.5C carbon budget in those forests and initiate a new "little ice age."
> We have to switch to plant based diets.
> It seems to me that nothing else will stop the environmental destruction, in this case overfishing, which alone threatens us with empty oceans in 2040's.
There are two things I can say about this:
1) We won't (unless/until forced to).
2) There are other sources of destruction that will continue even if most people switched to a plant-based diet.
> It seems to me that nothing else will stop the environmental destruction, in this case overfishing, which alone threatens us with empty oceans in 2040's.
There are two things I can say about this:
1) We won't (unless/until forced to).
2) There are other sources of destruction that will continue even if most people switched to a plant-based diet.
1. just remove the subsidies, the market will take care of the rest
2. what other industry is more destructive than animal ag?
2. what other industry is more destructive than animal ag?
how does shipping and air travel compare? I think they dwarf animal ag
Animal ag is not just emissions, though ... it's much bigger beast. Also deforestation, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, soil erosion, water overconsumption, zoonotic diseases, overfishing, reforestation potential of pastures ...
Estimates of just emissions from animal ag are somewhere between 14.5-26%.
All transport is 16.2% (road 11.9%, aviation 1.9%, shipping 1.7%, rail 0.4%).
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36980531
Estimates of just emissions from animal ag are somewhere between 14.5-26%.
All transport is 16.2% (road 11.9%, aviation 1.9%, shipping 1.7%, rail 0.4%).
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36980531
>We have to switch to plant based diets.
INCORRECT. We're on the cusp of a revolution in lab-grown fish and meat. It will be healthier, more humane, and better tasting, than the current system.
INCORRECT. We're on the cusp of a revolution in lab-grown fish and meat. It will be healthier, more humane, and better tasting, than the current system.
No. All meat in labs is grown in 1.5 L plastic bottles now, and they have like 5 of them in the whole lab.
It may take decades until it's ready to replace meat on the scale and price needed.
We (and the environment) unfortunately don't have that much time.
It may take decades until it's ready to replace meat on the scale and price needed.
We (and the environment) unfortunately don't have that much time.
that and fusion - any day now#
Enjoy your seafood while you can because they think they'll be gone before our generation dies out.