
Global warming disaster could suffocate life on Earth (2015) - jseliger
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2015/december/global-warming-disaster-could-suffocate-life-on-planet-earth-research-shows
======
finid
That's the voice of Science.

And we (in the USA) just elected a leader who doesn't believe that humans have
anything to do with climate change.

~~~
hyperbovine
For people outside the USA who may naively conflate "elected" with "the
majority of the voters voted for", I feel the need to point out that this is
not what happened.

~~~
manachar
Clinton did not get the majority by that much. A very significant portion of
the public voted for this leader and the party espousing similar anti-science
position all the way down the ticket.

~~~
hyperbovine
Agreed, but in democracies a special status is conferred upon the majority.
The majority of voters did not vote for this idiot. It's a really important
point.

~~~
wl
A majority of voters did not vote for Clinton, either.

~~~
wcarron
Plurality, then.

------
IanCal
I'm curious, what prediction do most of us have?

Will the world come up with a plan to actually curb carbon emissions as much
as we need to? Remove carbon?

A wide scale rises in temperature and other problems?

A huge impact on standard of living (setting us back X years)

A near extinction of humans? Full?

Or somewhere else on the scale, or somewhere distinct from my portrayal?

I'm really not sure personally. I'm recently veering towards the last on the
list, a near extinction of humans. If I'm very optimistic, just a large rise
in temperature and drop in standard of living. But then perhaps I'm being very
overly pessimistic.

~~~
IanDrake
I'm a climate change skeptic. I think there are a lot more factors at play
than these models are using.

A lot of people seem to believe these models are right more out of fear than a
rational validation of the models themselves. On top of that, creators of
these models seem to be tripping over each other to come up with more
outlandish results.

Part of my skepticism is the timescales that we're working with. Other issues
are perhaps a poor understanding of how the earth and everything on it might
react to changing conditions.

If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land
mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth
than another ice age.

And finally, how is it that it's currently more socially/scientifically
acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light than it is to
be a climate change skeptic? Science is never settled, unless it's a computer
model predicting the future? I hope I'm not the only person who finds that
ludicrous.

So here is my prediction: every generation of humans will have their
boogeyman, religious apocalypse, nukes, GW, etc... but in the end an asteroid
will cause a mass extinction event, just like it has before.

~~~
chillwaves
So if you equate GW to nukes, then you acknowledge it is a very serious threat
with the potential to wipe out most of humanity?

While nuclear war did not happen, there is nothing to suggest that it could
not have happened. That it was a "boogeyman" as you suggest.

~~~
mikeash
Nuclear annihilation should not be discussed as if it lies entirely in the
past, either. There are thousands of warheads ready to be fired on a moment's
notice. MAD didn't disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union, people just
stopped paying attention to it.

------
vivekd
This research is obviously bullocks, there were several periods in Earth's
history that were a lot warmer than in the current age by a lot more than 6
degrees and oxygen production didn't stop.

For example, temperatures during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal mamimum were 8
degrees warmer than today and by all apperences there was enough oxygen to
support the diverse fauna that existed then.

Similarly the Jurassic era had 5 times the CO2 of today's earth and much
higher temperatures but also enough oxygen to support a variety of dinosaurs
and other fauna 1.

1\. [http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-
di...](http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html)

~~~
knieveltech
You're assuming a lot here. The entire planetary biome was vastly different
during the periods you mention. Your assertion hinges on the assumption that
either phytoplankton were the primary source of atmospheric oxygen during
these periods, or that modern phytoplankton can in fact withstand these
changes in temperature and continue to make oxygen. Neither assumption seems
to be well founded.

~~~
vivekd
Of course Phytoplankton was always the biggest contributor to oxygen. Jurrasic
was the age when flowering plants were first coming into being, to suggest
that these plants could compete with plankton in oxygen production in any
meaningful way seems absurd.

And more importantly what plankton we are taking about here isn't for me to
address, it's something that would have been addressed in the paper were it
worth anything. Are we talking about diatoms, cyanobacteria and
dinoflagellates?

The biggest contributor to oxygen would be cyanobacteria, to think they can
survive these billions of years and all these mass extinctions and temperature
fluctuations and then stop working because of a 6 degree increase is also
nonsensical.

------
waserwill
Suffocation really isn't the big issue here. Phytoplankton generate energy via
photosynthesis, so as the temperature of water – and this the concentration of
gases that are dissolved inside – changes, so too will the organisms'
biological fitness. Since they reproduce very rapidly, and their populations
enormous, plankton will be able to mutate their enzymes to be more appropriate
for the situation (down side from the genomic perspective – decreased
biodiversity, especially in species without sexual reproduction).

The more pressing concern is that larger, more slowly-reproducing aquatic
organisms will experience significant strain to accommodate their metabolic
needs. For many fish, crustaceans, coral, and others: rapid change in
dissolved content on the ocean will cause population loss.

~~~
webkike
Has this property been observed?

~~~
slicktux
Of course, it is the basis of evolutionary theory. . .

~~~
sp332
Sometimes things adapt. Sometimes they go extinct. You don't get a guarantee
about which will happen.

------
devy

         A study led by Sergei Petrovskii, Professor in Applied Mathematics 
         from the University of Leicester’s Department of Mathematics, 
         has shown that an increase in the water temperature of the world’s 
         oceans of around six degrees Celsius – which some scientists predict 
         could occur as soon as 2100 - could stop oxygen production by phytoplankton 
         by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.
    

Disclaimer: I am a firm believer of global warming. Honest question: why is
this study done by a professor in Applied Mathematics?

~~~
williamscales
The title of the paper is "Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics
Under the Climate Change". The research is trying to mathematically model
plankton to determine how they will respond to global warming. That is why it
is done by a professor in Applied Mathematics.

------
graeme
Has there been any followup research or commentary on this? It's from December
2015.

Terrifying conjecture.

------
seiferteric
the great filter is coming.

~~~
peller
For anybody who doesn't get this comment:
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

~~~
seiferteric
To expand on my comment, I think this is a sink or swim moment for humanity. I
think we need a great leap in intelligence and technology to get out of this
mess, either with AI or genetic engineering because we don't have centuries to
come up with solutions and I don't think politics can solve it. It will take
real technology to remove substantial amounts of CO2 from the environment,
like small scale fusion, or self replicating solar along with efficient ways
to remove CO2 from air. Nothing else will do I'm afraid.

------
coldcode
No, life will continue as it always has, just not us unless we move elsewhere.
Life, as in living things, will always find a way. Perhaps roaches.

------
NumberCruncher
Not so long ago you could get burned at the stake for stating that the earth
is not flat and not the middle of the universe. Only because 97 % of experts
say something it does not mean that they are right. Maybe they are just afraid
to state a not mainstream opinion. And with the statement "keep calm and go on
with polluting the earth, it does not make any difference at all" could be
hard to get financed the next north pole trip. We need some drama to talk
about, they give us drama.

~~~
eatplayrove
What a load of BS. No one believed the earth was flat in whatever "not so long
ago" is, certainly no one was burned at the stake for it.

~~~
NumberCruncher
Calling Giordano Bruno BS is a new high in this topic.

~~~
eatplayrove
Right. Giordano Bruno did NOT believe in flat earth - NO ONE in his time did.
His scientific schtick was heliocentrism. And there is no proof that he was
burned for that reason -- it is mainly understood it was for religious
doctrine reasons. Even if he was, the people who burned him are not analogous
to the 97% of the scientific community.

------
Neliquat
December of 2015?

~~~
llsf
Yes, Dec 01, 2015 10:50 AM (assuming that was your question).

~~~
eb0la
That is something that should have been explained by the media.

I even have a headline for it: Stop Global warming or your kids won't have
grandsons.

Now we've got one year less to stop this mess.

