Global Warming and Extinction

[Berzerker]

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html

We're killing the planet, but it may not be because of CO2 - on the contrary, we may be slowing the rate of extinction with our contribution to a warming world. The more pressing problems are habitat destruction, over consumption and pollution.

A microscopic marine alga is thriving in the North Atlantic to an extent that defies scientific predictions, suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, a study led a by Johns Hopkins University scientist has found.

What these findings mean remains to be seen, however, as does whether the rapid growth in the tiny plankton's population is good or bad news for the planet.

Published Thursday in the journal Science, the study details a tenfold increase in the abundance of single-cell coccolithophores between 1965 and 2010, and a particularly sharp spike since the late 1990s in the population of these pale-shelled floating phytoplankton.

 

[Silurian]

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html

but it may not be because of CO2 - on the contrary

From your link

suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean

CO2 is carbon dioxide

 

[Borachio]

I quite like the idea of carbonated fizzy sea water.

Except that not much could live in it.

Still... you know... fish. Not the cleverest of critters. So who cares?

Well, actually I do.

 

[Berzerker]

to which they are attributing the rapid growth of plankton

 

[Silurian]

Here is related article on the subject.

There is more going on than the increased CO2 in the sea and the relationships are very complexe.

Foraminifera and Coccolithophore, which are small shelled plankton and algae, appear to be surviving remarkably well in the more acidic conditions. But numbers of pteropods and bivalves – such as mussels, clams and oysters – are falling.

'Ecologically, some species are soaring, whilst others are crashing out of the system,' says Professor Jason Hall-Spencer, of Plymouth University, who co-authored the paper.

The scientists are unsure whether this drop in certain species is because of changing pH levels, or whether it is due to a combination of stress factors like warming, overfishing and eutrophication – which results from excess nutrients in water.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1465

 

[Silurian]

Double post

 

[Kyriakos]

Global warming has also the positive effect of highly reducing existence of dihydrogen monoxide, an element responsible for thousands of deaths each year- eg prominently by choking. It is also used in illegal interrogation methods.

 

[Tee Kay]

Global warming has also the positive effect of highly reducing existence of dihydrogen monoxide, an element responsible for thousands of deaths each year- eg prominently by choking. It is also used in illegal interrogation methods.

Actually, no. The amount of DHMO on the planet is (minuscule amounts imported by comets aside) constant. Global warming might cause more solid DHMO to convert to liquid form and liquid DHMO to convert to gaseous DHMO (both of which processes actually accelerates global warming) but total DHMO remains the same. Worse still global warming actually causes liquid DHMO to expand in volume.

It's also not an element, it's a chemical compound. :3

 

[Kyriakos]

Ok. So global warming indeed does suck.

(although it may cause depletion of fresh DHMO)

 

[Borachio]

Fresh DHMO is over-rated according to the many who prefer beer, or tea. Even for drowning purposes.

 

[Tee Kay]

Fresh DHMO is over-rated according to the many who prefer beer, or tea. Even for drowning purposes.

Fresh DHMO is needed to make beer or tea though.

 

[warpus]

When the planet warms and climates change, so do habitats and ecosystems. Species are no longer going to suit the environments they are in, and some of them are going to go extinct. New species are going to fill the void, although since this is man-made warming, it's happening at an accelerated pace, so the "filling of the void" part is going to happen much much slower than what we'd need if we wanted biodiversity to remain as diverse as it is today.

 

[Daw]

What would it take for an Ice Age to start?

We know there were a few of them in the past, followed by Global Warmings to defrost the whole thing afterwards (and to it's present condition). And apparently neither of those processes of warming up and cooling down were man triggered or driven in the past though...

 

[Daw]

When the planet warms and climates change, so do habitats and ecosystems. Species are no longer going to suit the environments they are in, and some of them are going to go extinct. New species are going to fill the void, although since this is man-made warming, it's happening at an accelerated pace, so the "filling of the void" part is going to happen much much slower than what we'd need if we wanted biodiversity to remain as diverse as it is today.

It's overall accurate but not entirely and the wrongness of the tiny nuance leads to the wrong conclusion. The wrong nuance part is underlined with the specific wrong word bolded.

It is old but coincidentally better adjusted to the changed environment species who fill the void. Then they change to even better fit their local environments they already generally fit to keep living in, and if they don't intermix with their kin living in a different environment (which they also generally fit), they can finally produce two new species with different characteristics. Like in the talk about Canadians and other nordlings capable of dealing with frost (but having troubles functioning in what they call heat) and Hawaiians wearing wool socks and sweaters when the northern people find it finally possible to switch the air conditioner off and go out for a swim.

So, any environmental change leading to a species extinction punches a breach in biodiversity. Moreover, no environmental change also does. You cant maintain it being as diverse as it is at whatever moment.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, it takes time for new species to come into existence.

By "new species" I meant "new species to the area or ecosystem"

 

[Daw]

Yeah, it takes time for new species to come into existence.

By "new species" I meant "new species to the area or ecosystem"

Oh, the other ones, it was all right then.

As for the speeding the speciation up, as long as it is based on intraspecies variation and that in turn is based on random mutation rate as one of the factors, a carefully measured radiation increase might help it getting the needed pace.

 

[El_Machinae]

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html

We're killing the planet, but it may not be because of CO2 - on the contrary, we may be slowing the rate of extinction with our contribution to a warming world. The more pressing problems are habitat destruction, over consumption and pollution.

Your quotation doesn't tell me why you think rapid CO2 changes would slow extinctions.

 

[warpus]

No way, then we'll end up with Godzilla and superheroes.

 

[Daw]

No way, then we'll end up with Godzilla and superheroes.

Why not? It's biodiversity, no? Besides, I did say "CAREFULLY MEASURED increase", didn't I?

 

[CavLancer]

The problem Daw is that you are suggesting something about CO2 increase is good. In fact lots of things are good! Why does every change have to be bad? Could be good, such as increased CO2 helping plant life to thrive. But no, we have to be causing the end of the world.

Temps aren't rising, and sea levels aren't rising any faster than they have in the last 300 years.

So its all baseless drama.

If you want to know what's going on this common sense old boy will tell you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WM038vstio