http://wormlab.biology.dal.ca/publi cation/view/boyce-d-lewis-m-worm-b-

>>8012325
Because most people don't understand or care.

I don't know if I'm reading that shit right, but is the southern stuff increasing and the northern decreasing?

>>8012432

Unsure of how to read the graphs, am quoting the actual text from the paper.

>>8012436
I was just looking at the last set of graphs.

File: b29.png (177KB, 421x500px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 421x500px

>>8012449

Really though am I the only one scared by this shit?

File: the walls are melting.jpg (65KB, 720x690px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x690px

>mass deforestation
>increasing carbon output
>it's okay, the oceans will absorb it :^)

>>8012458
It really depends on what is causing it. If it is a long cycle that is normal that will come back up it is fine. If it is strictly a human-caused problem then we are totally fucked. It may be from denitrification caused by anaerobic bacteria unbalancing the Redfield stoichiometry. That can be caused by too much CO2 in the deep ocean (ocean dead zone), giving rise to more anaerobic bacteria which cause denitrification which causes lower phytoplankton levels.

Meaning, it really could be human-related.

>>8012325
permian triassic was likely caused by multiple simultaneous events like vulcanism and asteroid impacts
probably hitting the ocean causing it to boil or change composition dramatically

>>8012487
>permian triassic

Was that the one with the massive global coal fires?

>>8012485

I'm pretty sure it said somewhere in the abstract that the most likely culprit is the acidification of the ocean (ie, carbonic acid) combined with the double-whammy of warming oceans. So, most likely human caused, yes.

>>8012494
Lovely.

thankfully, it isn't a long lasting thing.
Unfortunately, it may mean the end of our current way of life or us entirely.

File: n1u9a15iYS1qa4karo1_1280.jpg (236KB, 1280x596px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1280x596px

>>8012500

>tfw you realize the anarcho-primitivists were right all along

How stable is the biopshere/ climate when modelled as a dynamic system?

How perturbation would it take to cause it to diverge in a runaway fashion?

>>8012510

I think auto-correct fucked you over somewhere, m8. Can't understand a thing you said

>>8012510
Because humanity is in the equation on this, the normal buffering effect against changes is skewed. at least from a human perspective. From the Earth's perspective this is just a tiny bump that will correct itself and things will move on in an otherwise very stable biosphere. From a human perspective this can wreck us completely and will only correct itself if humanity stops being the problem. That's either human extinction, industrial collapse, or conscious change in society to stop it.

Which one would you bet on?

>>8012510
>>8012513
How *much* perturbation would it take to cause it to diverge in a runaway fashion?

Fuck, I hate leaving words out.

>>8012325
Things have died in the past, so this is obviously nothing to be concerned about it.
Politicians probably paid for the study anyway.

>>8012521

>Politicians probably paid for the study anyway.
Ameriburger plz go

this is some serious shit.

al gore should make a slide show about it.

>>8012515
I'm honestly not sure which I would bet on.
human extinction I guess, the last human to die furiously masturbating to porn on his laptop as he/she dies alone among the rubble of the human race

>>8012325
you do realize we can dump iron in the ocean and cause these fuckers to surge like crazy right? they love it

>>8012621

You realize that phytoplankton can only live within a certain pH and temperature range, right?

>>8012629
and that range has been changing for millions of years. phytoplankton have survived much worse than this. despite the fast rates of temperature change and pH they are not a species that is going extinct any time soon despite this decline. we also have a solid proven method to bolster their numbers which is more than we can say for other endangered species. this decline is worrying but its nowhere near "sky is falling" yet this thread has some good science but awful responses. the plankton can be saved

>>8012647
>phytoplankton have survived much worse than this

True, but the animal life didn't during those times.

>>8012647
You're neglecting the real importance of phytoplankton decline. They are a major food source. A decline that large ripples through an entire ecosystem

>>8012661
it absolutely is important however this decline is there but it isn't "tremendous" yet and it can be fixed if it becomes a truly serious problem. plankton are simple organisms that are quite hardy. this is a worrying trend to be sure but its an easier problem to tackle than something as nebulous and widespread as climate change even if it is a consequence of it

Not attempting to dispute the paper posted, or the fact that Phytoplankton decline will land us in deep shit, but

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921.full
^This study investigates the increasing population of arctic phytoplankton (cited population increase:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6087/1408.abstract?ijkey=e7cc28e8c7ca24f997385f47200a70d3976a755d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Which makes sense, because more light is getting to the areas previously blocked by ice. But this study also concludes that this increase could also increase the temperatures of the water, thus further fucking up the arctic.

How do these correlate? The study in the OP doesn't evidence growing populations in the arctic, while this one shows that open water populations are low, but under-ice populations are booming.

Could be misinterpreting it, but we may be getting hit with a double whammy, where global warming is causing phytoplankton decline everywhere, except for under thinning ice sheets, whose rate of ice loss will increase due to increasing phytoplankton, further fucking us lol

File: calbuco eruption.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>8012492
The Permian Triassic extinction event was most likely caused by the mega-eruptions that happened at the Siberian traps. It was one million years of volcanic ash spewing into the sky from countless volcanoes covering an area the size of western Europe. Some have recently hypothesized that all the volcanism triggered an explosion in the population of a methane-producing microbe called Methanosarcina, and that they are what caused the "great dying". Methanosarcina grew in a frenzy in the seas, disgorging huge quantities of methane into Earth's atmosphere. This dramatically heated up the climate and fundamentally altered the chemistry of the oceans by driving up acid levels, causing unlivable conditions for many species

>>8012432
"trends are particularly pronounced in tropical
and subtropical oceans, where increasing stratification limits nutri-
ent supply."

It looks like there is a lack of data in most of the southern regions. Most measurements are probably from the northern hemisphere.

>>8012684
A small increase in the arctic probably won't compensate for a global decline. If temperatures change so much in the world's oceans, rapid die-off in large areas may occur.

>>8012325
It's concerning to me. Don't they provide a lot of our breathable oxygen? I imagine the entire globe suffocating for air. Can land plants really keep up with demand on their own?

Also the ecosystem effects will probably have more profound consequences. It could mean the extinction of many other animals that rely on them.

I have no doubt that selective pressure will cause them to adapt and fill the void where the others died. Not sure how long that will take, probably not that long. The question is what secondary effects will occur in the mean time? Will other species go extinct? If so how many? I feel like it's pretty likely that they will, we just don't know if it will be limited to ocean invertebrates we don't know or care about, or will ripple up to land animals. The food web is a complex thing that shouldn't be underestimated.

File: image.jpg (109KB, 1280x781px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x781px

>>8012432

>Permian-Triassic Extinction Event

Take a look at this chart, and note the trend towards less devestating extinctions. Life is getting better at surviving, not worse.

However, it would be equally valid to note that life is prone to periodic distillations. Still, the number of extant genera has only gone up throughout paleohistory. Also, many forms emerged hundreds of millions of years ago and have survived everything. Life has also gotten progressively more complex, not less.

I also think you underestimate the magnitude of the biochemical changes life is currently undergoing. What we're doing is more like the oxygen catastrophe; we're removing free oxygen; introducing CO2 and PAH's; introducing radionuclides; and on the cusp of controlling evolution. This resembles what Earth was like roughly 3.8 billion years ago, but higher energy.

Black mold grows around the Chernobyl reactor, eating the radiation. This is a form of photosynthesis, and human RTG's display the enormous, long-lasting energy it can provide. What happens when the black mold grows around the reactor, and gets up and walks?

Radionuclides often leak put in minute quantities - human nuclear industry will probably end in countless little trickles of particles that slowly saturate the environment. Certain organism will evolve porphyrins which use these radionuclides as our hemes use iron. Except alpha and beta particles are pieces of atoms - imagine a heme that can protonate and donate electrons.

This new form of life will be benefitted by spreading the radioactive particles, just as oxygen breathing life is benefitted by unleasing free oxygen. It'll seek out and tap our stores of nuclear waste, and when it hits the bottom it'll evolve to produce Pu from U. Imagine a microorganism that makes plutonium.

And humanity will be the knowing engineers of this new biochemistry. We'll meltdown our own reactors, and bask in the heat and glow.

>>8012755

>It's concerning to me. Don't they provide a lot of our breathable oxygen?

Ocean phytoplankton are responsible for slightly over half of the world's primary production, according to the article in OP

Too many people consuming too much.

Of course the infinite growth idiots will make up some rationalization.

>>8012325
Yeah, ocean acidification is no joke.
Jellyfish oceans and then no more oxygen production.
By then i'll either be a machine or dead so who cares lol #YOLO #FuckTheChildren #ProudBoomer