
Plankton Haven’t Been the Same Since the Industrial Revolution - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plankton-havent-been-same-industrial-revolution-180972266/
======
eoinmurray92
At Kyso [1] we are really concerned about climate change and environmental
damage in general - one of my co-founders actually started as an environmental
scientist. We make tools to make data-visualisations easier using Jupyter but
we've been wanting for the last few weeks to really focus the content that we
write on climate change, from a data point of view.

I'm wondering does anyone here have experience with this - where do you source
data-sets, what kind of charts have the most impact on people - is this even
worth doing?

We've made a few studies before going through Co2 rates
([https://kyso.io/KyleOS/atmospheric-
co2-concentrations-2](https://kyso.io/KyleOS/atmospheric-
co2-concentrations-2)), which countries are on the most sustainable path
([https://kyso.io/KyleOS/environment-
ranking](https://kyso.io/KyleOS/environment-ranking)) and per capita meat
consumption ([https://kyso.io/eoin/per-cap-meat-
consumption](https://kyso.io/eoin/per-cap-meat-consumption)) but we'd love to
get some advice on how to really target high impact work in this area

[1] [https://kyso.io](https://kyso.io) I'm a founder

~~~
steve_adams_86
Interesting; your meat consumption data seems to contradict what BBC's article
on meat consumption in India seems to imply. It makes it out as though Indians
are eating a lot of meat. Perhaps it's simply that a lot of Indians do eat
meat, but not very much of it (relative to North Americans for example).

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
india-43581122](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122)

~~~
shkkmo
That is addressed:

> Although some will attribute this to a tradition of vegetarianism, surely
> this is mostly due to the limited access to meat for the poor. As I note
> below, meat consumption is highest across high-income countries, and the
> demand for meat in India is, therefore, expected to grow faster with
> stronger & sustainable forecasted economic growth and rising per capita
> income.

------
teslabox
I think climate scientists need to be careful about doing conclusion-oriented
research, and climate crusaders should be more careful with their marketing
efforts.

CO2 is heavier than air. Most of the human-generated CO2 ends up in the ocean
[0]. This changes the pH of the ocean water, making it slightly more acidic.
pH changes and nutrient changes (CO2 + agriculture runoff) probably explain
the observations of changes in the types of plankton better than temperature
changes.

The climate is a complex system with lots of inputs. It is fundamentally
dishonest for the climate crusaders to whip up a frenzy (hockey-stick doom
prophecies) on incomplete models and data.

Changes is solar activity (sun spot cycles) and underwater volcanic activity
aren't really incorporated into the climate scientists' models, because they
don't have much/any data. Temperature sensors have only recently been placed
on the Juan de Fuca Ridge [1] (just off the coast of Oregon/Washington/British
Columbia). The volcanic trenches in the deep ocean have no network of
temperature sensors, or long-term activity data.

The Wall Street-owned utility model for the provision of electricity is
technically and ideologically bankrupt, but the "green energy" replacements
aren't much better. Solar panels wear out after a few decades, and are not
easily recycled with current technology. Most people can't put a wind farm on
top of their house, so wind-derived electricity is still purchased from a
utility company.

I wrote a piece titled _use as much energy as possible:_ "Under our current
system of money and finance, Wall Street is trusted to plan for the economy's
future energy needs. Wall Street invests where it sees the most potential for
payoff, and THEY make more money when the economy uses as much energy as
possible.

"Like a rigged carnival game, the energy economy is specifically distorted so
that we have little choice but to send lots of money to our financiers' energy
companies. [...]" [2]

[0] "The constant atmospheric CO 2 concentrations in the centuries prior to
the Industrial Revolution suggest that the oceans released a small amount of
CO 2 to the atmosphere to balance the carbon input from rivers. Today, this
trend is reversed and the oceans must remove CO 2 added to the atmosphere from
human activities, known as anthropogenic (humanderived) CO 2. In the 1980s,
the oceans removed an estimated 2.0±0.6 Pg of anthropogenic CO 2 each year.
Because humans are producing CO 2 at an everincreasing rate, the average ocean
removal rate increased to 2.4±0.5 Pg of carbon each year in the 1990s." \-
[http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-
the...](http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-
and-Atmosphere.html)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Ridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Ridge)

[2] [https://teslabox.com/use-as-much-energy-as-
possible/](https://teslabox.com/use-as-much-energy-as-possible/) [I wrote this
in 2011 - all my picture links are broken, hmm...]

~~~
vbuwivbiu
"heavier than air"

air is a mixture of gases - which gas of the mixture are you referring to ?

~~~
bqqyz
A mixture has a density of its own.

~~~
vbuwivbiu
and CO2 is part of the mixture which we call 'air' hence the question

