Unchecked climate change to destory all ocean life

She’ll be right. A new peer-reviewed shocker published in Science for the loons to ignore.

Rising temperatures, rising risks

Climate change brings with it the increasing risk of extinction across species and systems. Marine species face particular risks related to water warming and oxygen depletion. Penn and Deutsch looked at extinction risk for marine species across climate warming and as related to ecophysiological limits (see the Perspective by Pinsky and Fredston). They found that under business-as-usual global temperature increases, marine systems are likely to experience mass extinctions on par with past great extinctions based on ecophysiological limits alone. Drastically reducing global emissions, however, offers substantial protection, which emphasizes a need for rapid action to prevent possibly catastrophic marine extinctions. —SNV
Abstract

Global warming threatens marine biota with losses of unknown severity. Here, we quantify global and local extinction risks in the ocean across a range of climate futures on the basis of the ecophysiological limits of diverse animal species and calibration against the fossil record. With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, species losses from warming and oxygen depletion alone become comparable to current direct human impacts within a century and culminate in a mass extinction rivaling those in Earth’s past. Polar species are at highest risk of extinction, but local biological richness declines more in the tropics. Reversing greenhouse gas emissions trends would diminish extinction risks by more than 70%, preserving marine biodiversity accumulated over the past ~50 million years of evolutionary history.
Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Arthur Schopenhauer

    And what happens to humans when the wet bulb temperature is over 35C, all day? Another one for the loons to ignore.

    • The less said the better… now, back to eco religion! That, is not a sin, but living is; unless you pay your indulgence! If not, we all die…

  2. Jevons ghostMEMBER

    Global warning ➔ increased release of CO2 from the oceans
    (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/)
    Lowering of atmospheric CO2 ➔ increased release of CO2 from the oceans (equilibration effect)
    End result? Maybe a lose lose scenario. However, higher CO2 levels means trees and grasses grow faster. When doing this they convert CO2 into sugars and other structural compounds. So why not grow more trees and grasses? Revegetate those areas that once were verdant but which are now deserts.

      • Paid shill (AKA scientist)
        Opportunistic parasite (AKA financier)
        out-of-touch never-worked-a-day-in-their-life inner-city elite (AKA Green Politician)
        spoiled-rotten out-of-touch greedy land-looter (AKA farmer)

        • drsmithyMEMBER

          Rrrright.

          What’s the measure for being a “paid shill” ?

          Because climate science has been basically unanimous for decades, is probably the most scrutinised field in human history, and is building on ideas over a century old.

          Whoever is doing the paying, sure is playing a long game (and with objectives that are, to put it mildly, opaque).

          • Lol climate science is an example of the true scotsman fallacy.
            Anyone who disagrees “Isn’t a true climate scientist” but some heretic or charleton. Basing catastrophe on the use of climate models that are 100% wrong 100% of the time. Please explain why you need dozens of climate models? Surely if they worked you would only need one! It’s all about optics. They flat out lied about the past temperature (hockey stick), economic cost (cost to benefit ratio of 4c in the $), 97% consensus(excluded 98% of scientists surveyed/counted 90% of papers with no causation claim as supporting CAGW). And just for good measure your good friend Al Gore sits on the board of the WEF. If you cannot see this whole thing is a scam then you deserve to be pantsed.

          • Climate science is safe and effective. I get that. No scientist can be found to disagree. I get that.
            Anyone who disagrees is vilified, their questions ignored. I get that too.

          • @Robert: It isn’t hard to find holes in your thinking.
            On the consensus. (Note: there is a good reason for looking at expertise relevant to the issue at hand. I’m not going to ask a geologist about whether I need open heart surgery – am I?)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

            ”Basing catastrophe on the use of climate models that are 100% wrong 100% of the time. “
            Refer to numbers 87, 94, 126 and 184 (among others):
            https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            ”They flat out lied about the past temperature (hockey stick), “
            Refer to number 16 and 192 in the above link.

            @The Claw
            ”Anyone who disagrees is vilified, their questions ignored. I get that too.”
            I’m happy to engage anyone who cares to talk about it but, it is pretty damn obvious many don’t want to look outside of the self-induced, algorithm reinforced bubble they live in.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            Anyone who disagrees is vilified, their questions ignored. I get that too.

            For example ?

          • “I do actually. All of them are lazy and entitled and extremely wasteful.”
            As do I. Sadly not all break the mould that you are speaking of.

        • I'll have anotherMEMBER

          Keep in mind, everything, every. Single. Thing. we know about reality is based on observations.

          Scientists are responsible for all qualative and quantitative observations of reality, as well as their logical, method based interpretation and predictions using models based on the same.

          Go study some hard science and then come back and tell me it’s the realm of “paid shills”, because it’s clear you stopped looking at science once they got to year 7 algebra.

  3. TheLambKingMEMBER

    The LNP ‘net zero by 2050’ policy has the assumption of 2C of warming – which destroys all of the Great Barrier Reef. A vote for ScoMo is a vote for destroying the Great Barrier Reef

    • GarethMEMBER

      Both parties want to pump the country full of unnecessary migrants and with Australians having one of the largest per capita carbon footprints in the world – a vote for either major party is destined to kill the reef.

      Its a good policy by labor but low paid migrants wont be buying enough electric cars and solar panels to offset their incremental emissions.

      Put LNP and ALP last on all ballots.

      • So who then Gareth? Greens? They’re useless pricks who want to pump immigration as well. Sustainable Australia Party? Just LOL – last election there were more people from the “Stop Animal Cruelty” party floating around spruiking than SAP. And it was just the one girl.

          • The LOL because if they’re not even going to bother to show up and spruik on polling day, how are they ever going to win anything.? Like I said, the Stop Animal Cruelty party had bigger representation.

        • 1 – Pauline
          2 – SAP wimps
          3 – any other independents
          4 – Fat Billionaire
          5 – Greens*
          6 – Labor*
          7 – Liberal*

          * Put the big three unrepresentative parties last below the line in whatever order you can stomach.

  4. End stage of capitalism. Infinite growth in a finite system means something has to give. Good work humanity!

  5. hareebaMEMBER

    I love my trees, ocean and animals. It is hard to comprehend that a good portion of the population don’t care about any of them.
    I live in Avalon Beach, Sydney. Majestic gum trees are regularly being chopped down and poisoned. The trees are defenceless. I am very tempted to met out my own retribution. But will that achieve anything? But there needs to be a cost for destruction of 100 year old beauties. Doing nothing on my part seems wrong. It feels hopeless.

    • You might like to read The Overstory by Richard Powers. A novel about the value of forests set against the crazy need by humans to continue development.
      If they weren’t so hopeless on so many policies it would be enough to make me vote for the Greens. It would be good if we had a party that cared about the environment and the role of population growth in destroying it – it will be an independent for my vote.

  6. cZ0mzqFILC8zoVHqMEMBER

    Why the long faces?
    Developed countries are already reproducing below the level of replacement. China will soon be 40% down on population (not growth, actual numbers). Electric vehicle technology will be mature in another 20 years; and a decade after that self-driving vehicles will make a second household vehicle a hobbyist affectation and a primary vehicle optional. Fusion power may even be viable.
    Lets worry about graduating the great filter without starving through lack of fertilizer or diesel.

    • The global population is still growing at around 80 million a year, just like in the 1960s. The rate is lower for sure, but the base is much larger. Fertility rates are still very high in Sub-Saharan Africa and some Islamic countries. There is also high growth due to demographic momentum, even after fertility rates have fallen down to or below replacement level. A population that has been growing rapidly has a pyramid shaped age distribution, with the births in the huge young adult generation and most of the deaths in the relatively tiny elderly generation, so population growth continues, even if the young people are having small families. The growth can go on until the last generation to have large families is dying off, up to 70 years. See

      https://population.un.org/wpp/publications/Files/PopFacts_2017-4_Population-Momentum.pdf

      It is hard to count on technology. Just look at the science fiction and popular science articles of the 1950s and 1960s. Where’s my flying car? Where is our electric power that was going to be too cheap to meter? Whatever happened to our 20 hour work week? Why are people still dying of cancer? The list could go on…

      • Yes, it’s a race between population emissions & tipping points & I think tipping points are winning currently, but I’m quite confident we already have the tech eg solar panels nearly 100x current, batteries that charge within minutes etc, so long as big fossil & politicians don’t knee cap em.

  7. Here is 380 professorial loons for you all. There is no climate emergency. Even the
    https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/WCD-version-042722.pdf
    “Peer reviewed” climate science has been a basket case since the climategate emails were leaked.
    If you really want to be informed you will read them. The originals are linked.
    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
    Meanwhile in the real world:
    And Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank, says it is hypocritical for western governments, made rich by fossil fuels, “to say to African countries, ‘You cannot develop dams, you cannot develop coal, just rely on these very expensive renewables’. African countries will not listen.”

    The Center for Global Development calculates that $10 billion invested in renewable energy technology in sub-Saharan Africa could give 20-27 million people access to basic electricity, whereas the same sum spent on gas-fired generation would supply 90 million.
    https://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/matt-ridley-africa-needs-to-be-rich-rather-than-green/
    In the next ten years, Australia will close a couple of coal plants, while Africa will build 1250.
    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/africa-to-double-coal-fired-power-by-2030/

  8. What does it cost to produce a solar panel? (physical not dollar)

    If I was in charge of an isolated island with plenty of raw materials and many engineers and no dollars and imports, what would it cost to produce a solar panel?

  9. David WilsonMEMBER

    STOP PRESS: our own BOM recently announced that 2021 was Australia’s 19 th warmest year and NASA announced last year was our planets 6th year in a row that was cooler than 2016 the most recent hottest year. Those of us that know the facts also are informed that in Roman times and also 3300 years ago it was one to two degrees warmer than today.
    Its actually getting cooler.
    Some people need to get a life an realize that climate change is a natural cyclical evolving situation that has nothing to do with CO2.
    I await the usual uniformed rubbish replies with interest.