FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Climate change effects on marine life more serious than you can imagine

Climate change effects on marine life more serious than you can imagine

(5:10) The worst-case scenario for the oceans, and therefore for all life on the planet, is playing out right in front of our faces.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Nick, UK (786 days ago)

The oceans are being poisoned??? Well they may be around the U.S. but in the U.K. rivers which were once totally polluted are now teaming with fish and are populated by seals and whales. The Thames and the Severn are classic examples.

ReplyVote up (146)down (72)
Original comment

The oceans are being poisoned??? Well they may be around the U.S. but in the U.K. rivers which were once totally polluted are now teaming with fish and are populated by seals and whales. The Thames and the Severn are classic examples.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (786 days ago)

Ach its just classic propaganda rubbish for idiots to get uptight about. Nobody intelligent takes it seriously

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Ach its just classic propaganda rubbish for idiots to get uptight about. Nobody intelligent takes it seriously

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (787 days ago)

First, whenever I am looking for science articles, the last place I go is the Rolling Stone magazine. Just like I don't watch Ancient Aliens to get scientific accurate information.

Brace yourself. We are currently at 16C and we will eventually get to 25C just like the Earth has been in the past. If animals cannot adapt to that new temperature, then they will die off. Humans will need to adapt if they expect to survive.

It doesn't matter if we are the cause or not. The planet's temperature is expected to increase natually anyway so we need to prepare for it.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

First, whenever I am looking for science articles, the last place I go is the Rolling Stone magazine. Just like I don't watch Ancient Aliens to get scientific accurate information.

Brace yourself. We are currently at 16C and we will eventually get to 25C just like the Earth has been in the past. If animals cannot adapt to that new temperature, then they will die off. Humans will need to adapt if they expect to survive.

It doesn't matter if we are the cause or not. The planet's temperature is expected to increase natually anyway so we need to prepare for it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (786 days ago)

Even if you're right about eventually getting to 25C, we are talking about thousands or millions of years. Don't forget, we've been warming up from an ice age for the past 10,000 years, which at its coldest was about 6C cooler than today. That is the pace of natural climate change - really really really sloooowwwww. Scientists are telling us that if we continue business as usual, we'll be 6C warmer by the end of this century, that's only 85 years, as compared to 10,000. Climate change at this pace can only be triggered by a "catastrophic" event, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, or the increase of CO2 by 40%, methane, nitrous oxide, deforestation etc in 100 years.

You are mixing up human and geological timescales. Don't worry, you're in good company - creationists also mix up these timescales, which is why they can't believe evolution.

"Humans will need to adapt if they expect to survive." That's the first sense you've uttered in a long time. We absolutely need to adapt. We need to adapt the world to run on cheap clean energy. Then we stand a fighting chance, because we will be able to use unlimited energy to stabilise the climate. For example, desalinating seawater and then using it to irrigate deserts would use a lot of energy and would be counter-productive if that energy came from burning fossil fuels. But if it came from solar or wave power, that's a different story.

And of course, we need to adapt our politics, because giving up fossil fuels when the fossil fuel industry practically runs the world, would be next to impossible.

"It doesn't matter if we are the cause or not." Actually it does. If human activity can warm the planet, then human activity can also cool it. We just have to adapt our activity so the effect is that the climate stabilises and the oceans don't acidify and kill off the marine life - which takes us back to your first point that humans need to adapt.

Phew, I'm glad we finally agree.

ReplyVote up (122)down (96)
Original comment

Even if you're right about eventually getting to 25C, we are talking about thousands or millions of years. Don't forget, we've been warming up from an ice age for the past 10,000 years, which at its coldest was about 6C cooler than today. That is the pace of natural climate change - really really really sloooowwwww. Scientists are telling us that if we continue business as usual, we'll be 6C warmer by the end of this century, that's only 85 years, as compared to 10,000. Climate change at this pace can only be triggered by a "catastrophic" event, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, or the increase of CO2 by 40%, methane, nitrous oxide, deforestation etc in 100 years.

You are mixing up human and geological timescales. Don't worry, you're in good company - creationists also mix up these timescales, which is why they can't believe evolution.

"Humans will need to adapt if they expect to survive." That's the first sense you've uttered in a long time. We absolutely need to adapt. We need to adapt the world to run on cheap clean energy. Then we stand a fighting chance, because we will be able to use unlimited energy to stabilise the climate. For example, desalinating seawater and then using it to irrigate deserts would use a lot of energy and would be counter-productive if that energy came from burning fossil fuels. But if it came from solar or wave power, that's a different story.

And of course, we need to adapt our politics, because giving up fossil fuels when the fossil fuel industry practically runs the world, would be next to impossible.

"It doesn't matter if we are the cause or not." Actually it does. If human activity can warm the planet, then human activity can also cool it. We just have to adapt our activity so the effect is that the climate stabilises and the oceans don't acidify and kill off the marine life - which takes us back to your first point that humans need to adapt.

Phew, I'm glad we finally agree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (786 days ago)

"that's only 85 years, as compared to 10,000" How long did it take the Sahara oasis to turn into a desert? It was during the times humans were on this earth and before the industrial age. Climate can change quickly on this planet and can do it naturally. Same thing with Egypt.

The algae in the ocean is probably caused by an increase in CO2 and that is nature’s way of dealing with an over abundance of a food supply. Algae needs sunlight and CO2 to survive and then converts that to O2. Once there is an equilibrium met, the algae will die off. The algae is not there due to global warming. It’s there due to a slight increase in CO2.

Regarding adapting, I was referring to Darwin’s adaptation. You need to adapt yourself to be able to survive in a 25C environment because that’s what the history of the world says we are headed toward.

“then human activity can also cool it.“ Why would you want to do that? I would think if the temperature average gets over 25C then I would think about cooling the planet. But to suggest that we do anything unnatural to this planet is crazy.

“Phew, I'm glad we finally agree.” Nope, far from it. You still think that CO2 is the only cause of global warming even when you can look at historical records and see that CO2 does not correlate to temperatures. You also think that all increases in the temperature is human caused when you can look at the historical record before humans existed and see that the temperatures are usually much higher than they are now. We are coming out of an ice age so it only makes sense but you cannot see that or choose to ignore it.

ReplyVote up (111)down (97)
Original comment

"that's only 85 years, as compared to 10,000" How long did it take the Sahara oasis to turn into a desert? It was during the times humans were on this earth and before the industrial age. Climate can change quickly on this planet and can do it naturally. Same thing with Egypt.

The algae in the ocean is probably caused by an increase in CO2 and that is nature’s way of dealing with an over abundance of a food supply. Algae needs sunlight and CO2 to survive and then converts that to O2. Once there is an equilibrium met, the algae will die off. The algae is not there due to global warming. It’s there due to a slight increase in CO2.

Regarding adapting, I was referring to Darwin’s adaptation. You need to adapt yourself to be able to survive in a 25C environment because that’s what the history of the world says we are headed toward.

“then human activity can also cool it.“ Why would you want to do that? I would think if the temperature average gets over 25C then I would think about cooling the planet. But to suggest that we do anything unnatural to this planet is crazy.

“Phew, I'm glad we finally agree.” Nope, far from it. You still think that CO2 is the only cause of global warming even when you can look at historical records and see that CO2 does not correlate to temperatures. You also think that all increases in the temperature is human caused when you can look at the historical record before humans existed and see that the temperatures are usually much higher than they are now. We are coming out of an ice age so it only makes sense but you cannot see that or choose to ignore it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (785 days ago)

The algae blooms could be caused by increased CO2 from human activiy, but they are mainly caused by fertilisers run-offs into rivers and then into the ocean - which is also human activity. It's just one of the side-effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at the current rate of 40 billion tons a year.

"Regarding adapting, I was referring to Darwin’s adaptation." Lol. You deserve a Darwin Award for that funny idea. We've got 85 years to evolve into a tornado-resistant species that can survive on seawater, straw and cockroaches.

You've just got to get your head around the difference between geological and human timescales. Then everything will make more sense.

Jesus lived 2000 years ago. On a human timescale, that is a long time ago, but on a geological timescale, 2000 years is an instant. Humans have been around about 100,000 years, that's 1/10 of 1 million years. The dinosaurs ruled the planet for over 150 million years. The whole of human existence is an instant on a geological timescale.

Warming the planet by 6C (the equivalent of the Ice Age to today) over the next 85 years is kissing goodbye to human civilisation, and quite possibly all known life in the universe, as the climate flips into runaway global warming until it reaches an equilibium, just like on Venus. You'd better down a few of those Evolution pills.

"You still think that CO2 is the only cause of global warming ..." You haven't been listening.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

The algae blooms could be caused by increased CO2 from human activiy, but they are mainly caused by fertilisers run-offs into rivers and then into the ocean - which is also human activity. It's just one of the side-effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at the current rate of 40 billion tons a year.

"Regarding adapting, I was referring to Darwin’s adaptation." Lol. You deserve a Darwin Award for that funny idea. We've got 85 years to evolve into a tornado-resistant species that can survive on seawater, straw and cockroaches.

You've just got to get your head around the difference between geological and human timescales. Then everything will make more sense.

Jesus lived 2000 years ago. On a human timescale, that is a long time ago, but on a geological timescale, 2000 years is an instant. Humans have been around about 100,000 years, that's 1/10 of 1 million years. The dinosaurs ruled the planet for over 150 million years. The whole of human existence is an instant on a geological timescale.

Warming the planet by 6C (the equivalent of the Ice Age to today) over the next 85 years is kissing goodbye to human civilisation, and quite possibly all known life in the universe, as the climate flips into runaway global warming until it reaches an equilibium, just like on Venus. You'd better down a few of those Evolution pills.

"You still think that CO2 is the only cause of global warming ..." You haven't been listening.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (785 days ago)

"The algae blooms could be caused by increased CO2 from human activiy, but they are mainly caused by fertilisers run-offs” I agree with that but I think the video said it’s caused by global warming which is wrong.

“survive on seawater, straw and cockroaches." We have that ability. Desalination machines can make enough water for everyone. They have them on large ships like carriers and are creating 15 of them in California: LINK


“You've just got to get your head around the difference between geological and human timescales.” I understand what you believe but there is no scientific evidence that the humans are making it warm any faster than nature alone would.

“Warming the planet by 6C (the equivalent of the Ice Age to today) over the next 85 years" That is fear mongering. Do you really think we are going to increase another 6C in 85 years when we only did 1C in the last 120 years? I would love to see your evidence and the model you used to come to that conclusion.

“reaches an equilibium, just like on Venus.” You throw out every statement I make when I mention Venus and now you’re using it when it fits with some point you want to make. Notice that Venus CO2 levels were not caused by humans and was a natural occurrence.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

"The algae blooms could be caused by increased CO2 from human activiy, but they are mainly caused by fertilisers run-offs” I agree with that but I think the video said it’s caused by global warming which is wrong.

“survive on seawater, straw and cockroaches." We have that ability. Desalination machines can make enough water for everyone. They have them on large ships like carriers and are creating 15 of them in California: LINK


“You've just got to get your head around the difference between geological and human timescales.” I understand what you believe but there is no scientific evidence that the humans are making it warm any faster than nature alone would.

“Warming the planet by 6C (the equivalent of the Ice Age to today) over the next 85 years" That is fear mongering. Do you really think we are going to increase another 6C in 85 years when we only did 1C in the last 120 years? I would love to see your evidence and the model you used to come to that conclusion.

“reaches an equilibium, just like on Venus.” You throw out every statement I make when I mention Venus and now you’re using it when it fits with some point you want to make. Notice that Venus CO2 levels were not caused by humans and was a natural occurrence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (784 days ago)

"We have that ability. Desalination machines can make enough water for everyone." So you weren't actually referring to "Darwin's adaptation", but to technology coming to the rescue. I hope you're right and we ditch dinosaur technology asap and stop burning fossil fuels. Lab grown meat would also be a good move.

I think technology can save us, but it's not the bottleneck. Politics is. It's people like you who choose to put a political agenda ahead of advice from almost every expert in the world.

Scientists are smart people. Actually, people are smart. We know how to create a sustainable world that can support the 11 billion population the world predicted stabilise at around 2050. We even have the ultimate incentive (our own survival) and an economic incentive (a green industrial revolution) to force change, yet libertarian politics still gets in the way.

The blindness of libertarians is on the par with the stupidity of creationists. Both are still using that part of the brain that evolved out when we crawled from the oceans millions of years ago.

Is a 6C rise fear mongering? 6C in 85 years is predicted if we continue business as usual. If we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, then a 2C rise is still expected. The difference is that 2C would be catastrophic, 6C is goodbye humans. We are between a rock and oblivion.

"Do you really think we are going to increase another 6C in 85 years when we only did 1C in the last 120 years?" Nice Freudian typo "…when WE only did 1C…".

The reason is simple and common sense if you bothered to think about it. We started burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale in Victorian times and have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere ever since. But each year, we add more than the last. I don't know how long it took to add the first 40 billion tons of CO2, probably decades, but today that's what we're adding in 2015 alone. Next year it will be more, probably 45 billion tons. Just think "exponential" and it will all make sense.

"there is no scientific evidence that the humans are making it warm any faster than nature alone would." You've actually got it the wrong way round. There is no scientific evidence of any natural occurrence that can account for the 1C rise. And there's overwhelming scientific evidence that the 40% rise in CO2, and the rise in methane, deforestation, etc. does account for that 1C rise. That's why out of ALL peer-reviewed climate research in 2013 (over 10,500 papers), only 2 rejected AGW.

ReplyVote up (107)down (70)
Original comment

"We have that ability. Desalination machines can make enough water for everyone." So you weren't actually referring to "Darwin's adaptation", but to technology coming to the rescue. I hope you're right and we ditch dinosaur technology asap and stop burning fossil fuels. Lab grown meat would also be a good move.

I think technology can save us, but it's not the bottleneck. Politics is. It's people like you who choose to put a political agenda ahead of advice from almost every expert in the world.

Scientists are smart people. Actually, people are smart. We know how to create a sustainable world that can support the 11 billion population the world predicted stabilise at around 2050. We even have the ultimate incentive (our own survival) and an economic incentive (a green industrial revolution) to force change, yet libertarian politics still gets in the way.

The blindness of libertarians is on the par with the stupidity of creationists. Both are still using that part of the brain that evolved out when we crawled from the oceans millions of years ago.

Is a 6C rise fear mongering? 6C in 85 years is predicted if we continue business as usual. If we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, then a 2C rise is still expected. The difference is that 2C would be catastrophic, 6C is goodbye humans. We are between a rock and oblivion.

"Do you really think we are going to increase another 6C in 85 years when we only did 1C in the last 120 years?" Nice Freudian typo "…when WE only did 1C…".

The reason is simple and common sense if you bothered to think about it. We started burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale in Victorian times and have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere ever since. But each year, we add more than the last. I don't know how long it took to add the first 40 billion tons of CO2, probably decades, but today that's what we're adding in 2015 alone. Next year it will be more, probably 45 billion tons. Just think "exponential" and it will all make sense.

"there is no scientific evidence that the humans are making it warm any faster than nature alone would." You've actually got it the wrong way round. There is no scientific evidence of any natural occurrence that can account for the 1C rise. And there's overwhelming scientific evidence that the 40% rise in CO2, and the rise in methane, deforestation, etc. does account for that 1C rise. That's why out of ALL peer-reviewed climate research in 2013 (over 10,500 papers), only 2 rejected AGW.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (784 days ago)
Latest comment:

“So you weren't actually referring to ‘Darwin's adaptation’, but to technology coming to the rescue.” No, that’s not it. You were trying to adapt by changing the natural cycle of the planet and to keep it at its current temperature. I was suggesting letting the planet continue on its natural path and humans doing whatever we need to survive in the warmer climate. If that involves technology, then that’s what are species is good at and let’s use it.

“I think technology can save us, but it's not the bottleneck. Politics is.” Really? If you were the President or Prime Minister, what would you do to change the world. Believe it or not, politicians don’t have as much power as you think they do. It’s the power of the people. Not completely sure about how politics work in the UK but in the USA, the President can Veto a bill and that’s about it. He cannot create laws himself. I hope your Parliament has some similar role to prevent the Prime Minister from having too much power.

“It's people like you who choose to put a political agenda ahead of advice from almost every expert in the world.” What do you think my political agenda is? I’d like to know that myself because I wasn’t aware I had one.

“Scientists are smart people.” I agree and if they want to create a Theory about AGW, they should use the scientific method and not a survey of cherry picked papers to prove their hypothesis.

“yet libertarian politics still gets in the way.” Which libertarian society is there today that is getting in the way? In the USA, we have a liberal (hugely different from libertarian) president and in the UK your leader is a member of the Conservative Party. China, another large country is communist. So I wonder which country is libertarian that is preventing you from getting your way. In the USA, the libertarian party has never been successful in getting a president elected.


“6C in 85 years is predicted” Predicted by who? Links would be nice.

“6C is goodbye humans.” I disagree. Many animals thrived when the temperatures were 25C for millions of years and you’re suggesting that 16 + 6 = 22C will kill humans. Unlikely.

“…when WE only did 1C…". Yes, WE as in the Planet earth.

“There is no scientific evidence of any natural occurrence that can account for the 1C rise.” And I submit for your review again, the historical record. LINK

“And there's overwhelming scientific evidence that the 40% rise in CO2, and the rise in methane, deforestation, etc.” Interesting that you are now changing your story and admitting that there are other factors than CO2. I tried to tell you like a year ago that animal farming produces more greenhouse gas than all transportation methods combined (cars, trains, planes, and boats) but instead of forcing everyone to become vegetarians to fix the problem, you want to stop people from driving to their jobs and using computers. All necessary components of a thriving economy. Humans can have a healthy life on vegetables alone.

“That's why out of ALL peer-reviewed climate research in 2013 (over 10,500 papers), only 2 rejected AGW.” Blah, blah, blah. I could care less what a survey says. It is not part of the scientific process so I completely ignore that. Show me empirical and measurable evidence that can be tested with experiments and then repeated. Now that would be compelling proof, but WAIT, none of that exists so the best you have to show any sort of AGW is a survey of cherry picked papers. Not good enough for me and the scientific community should be ashamed for thinking it is.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Latest comment:

“So you weren't actually referring to ‘Darwin's adaptation’, but to technology coming to the rescue.” No, that’s not it. You were trying to adapt by changing the natural cycle of the planet and to keep it at its current temperature. I was suggesting letting the planet continue on its natural path and humans doing whatever we need to survive in the warmer climate. If that involves technology, then that’s what are species is good at and let’s use it.

“I think technology can save us, but it's not the bottleneck. Politics is.” Really? If you were the President or Prime Minister, what would you do to change the world. Believe it or not, politicians don’t have as much power as you think they do. It’s the power of the people. Not completely sure about how politics work in the UK but in the USA, the President can Veto a bill and that’s about it. He cannot create laws himself. I hope your Parliament has some similar role to prevent the Prime Minister from having too much power.

“It's people like you who choose to put a political agenda ahead of advice from almost every expert in the world.” What do you think my political agenda is? I’d like to know that myself because I wasn’t aware I had one.

“Scientists are smart people.” I agree and if they want to create a Theory about AGW, they should use the scientific method and not a survey of cherry picked papers to prove their hypothesis.

“yet libertarian politics still gets in the way.” Which libertarian society is there today that is getting in the way? In the USA, we have a liberal (hugely different from libertarian) president and in the UK your leader is a member of the Conservative Party. China, another large country is communist. So I wonder which country is libertarian that is preventing you from getting your way. In the USA, the libertarian party has never been successful in getting a president elected.


“6C in 85 years is predicted” Predicted by who? Links would be nice.

“6C is goodbye humans.” I disagree. Many animals thrived when the temperatures were 25C for millions of years and you’re suggesting that 16 + 6 = 22C will kill humans. Unlikely.

“…when WE only did 1C…". Yes, WE as in the Planet earth.

“There is no scientific evidence of any natural occurrence that can account for the 1C rise.” And I submit for your review again, the historical record. LINK

“And there's overwhelming scientific evidence that the 40% rise in CO2, and the rise in methane, deforestation, etc.” Interesting that you are now changing your story and admitting that there are other factors than CO2. I tried to tell you like a year ago that animal farming produces more greenhouse gas than all transportation methods combined (cars, trains, planes, and boats) but instead of forcing everyone to become vegetarians to fix the problem, you want to stop people from driving to their jobs and using computers. All necessary components of a thriving economy. Humans can have a healthy life on vegetables alone.

“That's why out of ALL peer-reviewed climate research in 2013 (over 10,500 papers), only 2 rejected AGW.” Blah, blah, blah. I could care less what a survey says. It is not part of the scientific process so I completely ignore that. Show me empirical and measurable evidence that can be tested with experiments and then repeated. Now that would be compelling proof, but WAIT, none of that exists so the best you have to show any sort of AGW is a survey of cherry picked papers. Not good enough for me and the scientific community should be ashamed for thinking it is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Dog and two ducks
Dog and two ducks
Insect population down by 76%
Insect population down by 76%
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
Blue Planet II - Trailer 2
Blue Planet II - Trailer 2
Tokyo's incredible underground flood defence systems
Tokyo's incredible underground flood defence systems