Climate change may be dissolving the ocean floor

[Qnubi]

We will be fine, our children probably as well. Our children children will have to worry about it, maybe, we have our own problems right now that need to be fixed for example inequality in our society is a much more pressing issue than acidification of our oceans. If we, as a society, are still not able to create a world where everyone can be happy, have shelter and food then our species is not worth saving anyway. That's my PoV.

Fix our species related issues first, then worry about the planet when everyone feels happy.

[PC2]

We generally don't rely on the ocean for agriculture anyway, but it is a massive carbon sink and produces a great deal of the Earth's oxygen.

I just meant agriculture as a synonym for food. Whether my food comes from the ocean or a green house or a vertical farm, it's all fine by me.

Yes we want to optimize our atmosphere, but we have many thousands of years to work on that problem.

[JohnBrown1917]

We will be fine, our children probably as well. Our children children will have to worry about it, maybe, we have our own problems right now that need to be fixed for example inequality in our society is a much more pressing issue than acidification of our oceans. If we, as a society, are still not able to create a world where everyone can be happy, have shelter and food then our species is not worth saving anyway. That's my PoV.

Fix our species related issues first, then worry about the planet when everyone feels happy.

The planet will be fine, its how it will affect us that will matter.

And unless you're 40/50+, you probably will not be fine, we only got like a decade to stop the worst damage.

[exochaft]

color me curious... this simulation... how did they validate that it was accurate?

Welcome to climate change theory, where everything is based on models predicting DOOM!, not actual data that shows quite the opposite. Don't want to derail the entire thread explaining how the models are all based on assumptions and rely on ignoring/violate basic laws of physics and thermodynamics (already have done it enough ), however this study is purely a simulation. While I can't get a good look at the simulation, I can make an educated guess where some flaws in the model may be, especially when it comes to estimated propagation of CO2 and actual increases in CO2... little hint: most studies/models use estimated propagation of CO2 values instead of actual CO2 levels, because almost all the CO2 never ends up in the atmosphere thanks to things like trees and plants.

Here's a little food for thought: people should ask themselves why they think climate change does or does not exist. Can guarantee almost everyone will say they believe in climate change because someone told them or they saw it on the news, not because they actually study the field or have enough math/science background to actually look at the models/studies to verify their accuracy. Yeah, the math and science can be a little dry, but if climate change is really that important to you, wouldn't you want to verify it yourself instead of blindly trust what you're told? If you really want to be objective about the topic, be skeptical of everything, especially if you agree with something. While people may think scientists are naturally objective, that is completely false. I've personally never worked with any scientist that hasn't been biased to some degree concerning their own work, especially in climate change and the amount of money in this field. It's actually pretty nasty if you don't follow the crowd with climate change, as it's not the popular thing to do.

Even with this article, I went in with the mind set that "Alright, this could be true, let's take a look and see what's going on," but it becomes pretty evident that there isn't anything solid concerning this premise, at least the article made a small attempt to put in a dissenting opinion (it's not in the OP's snippet, you have to read the full article). I guarantee many respondents and readers of the article just read the snippet, or maybe even just the title, and relished in the confirmation of their own bias instead of actually looking at the content.

[Swalload]

If that's the case, then we're not doing what you're proposing either. All we're doing is finding out the best ways to exploit each other and our environment. If we DID focus all our energy and resources into leaving, then you very well might be right.

Yeah, we're not doing much, lol. I'm just kinda playing devil's advocate. I don't believe we can reach a technological level advanced enough to jump on another planet before screwing this one over. But then again, that's just a belief, it doesn't prove anything and is basically useless.

[Techno-Druid]

We will be fine, our children probably as well. Our children children will have to worry about it, maybe, we have our own problems right now that need to be fixed for example inequality in our society is a much more pressing issue than acidification of our oceans. If we, as a society, are still not able to create a world where everyone can be happy, have shelter and food then our species is not worth saving anyway. That's my PoV.

Fix our species related issues first, then worry about the planet when everyone feels happy.

This idea of putting things off for the next generation to handle is extremely idiotic and the reason we're in the situation we're in now.

[ohiostate124]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...mpression=true

[Nihilist74]

The best solution is to sterilize 90% of the human population.

[Seranthor]

The best solution is to sterilize 90% of the human population.

Why stop there... go full Logan's run on humanity. How many actually contribute more than they consume?

[Zantos]

aren't we supposed to dispense with usual scientific methodology for climate alarm?

Some of them seem to think so. When you toss out the normal methods, you get half baked "studies" and "research" that people can, and do, find faults and flaws with. Then it gets toss out as more bs and they ignore climate change for another day because of it. They do more harm then good when they do things like this.

[Dug]

So we're at the point where mouth breathers are now denying the acidification of the oceans? Education is a lost cause. Inform the coral reefs that forum retards said everything is okay.

[Sliske]

The article says no one even checked the seafloor but you want us back in the medieval age based on a computer model LOL

On top of this even if for instance all of the West wanted to do something, China wouldn't. In fact, China, Russia and the Middle East would probably see the gap in the market and pick up the slack - producing more coal, oil, cars, trucks and so on. They would become the economic power houses of the world in the matter of a few decades.

[Techno-Druid]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...mpression=true

Thank you for the article, although the error didn't exactly translate into the ocean's warming being inaccurate, rather it's less intense than previously thought: between 10-70% instead of 80%.

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

[Zantos]

This study and its publishing is likely an attempt to get funding to actually do that. It might surprise you to know that gathering large numbers of samples from the seafloor at dozens if not hundreds of locations around the globe (because you need a large sample size if you want to be absolutely sure of things in science) will cost a lot of money. Creating an artificial environment and running simulations over and over again is a hell of a lot cheaper, and still gives you strong indicators of what might be happening.

Back in the day, they followed the scientific method. They would get a theory, and take it as far as they could, and then use that to convince them that they have found a strong enough link to get funding for more in depth research.

In this case, they don't have to go to hundreds of locations. Just a few and observe what is there. Cheaper then several hundred. Not only that, but this wasn't a credible study in my books. Did they have the full sediment make up prior to conducting it? Or are they going off of data from other locations or other conditions to try to predict what could or couldn't happen? You need hard, real data to come to any type of conclusion. A simulation is nothing but a best guess, meant to be the Last Step after getting the data needed to conduct a fully educated study. Its not supposed to be your first step because, like I said, many things could be wrong or flawed with the simulations.

[The Stormbringer]

Back in the day, they followed the scientific method. They would get a theory, and take it as far as they could, and then use that to convince them that they have found a strong enough link to get funding for more in depth research.

In this case, they don't have to go to hundreds of locations. Just a few and observe what is there. Cheaper then several hundred. Not only that, but this wasn't a credible study in my books. Did they have the full sediment make up prior to conducting it? Or are they going off of data from other locations or other conditions to try to predict what could or couldn't happen? You need hard, real data to come to any type of conclusion. A simulation is nothing but a best guess, meant to be the Last Step after getting the data needed to conduct a fully educated study. Its not supposed to be your first step because, like I said, many things could be wrong or flawed with the simulations.

It probably isn't the first step, and we're likely only seeing a fraction of what was done here. You are correct though, it should be enough to simply have a theory with data pushed as far as possible to get funding for more research, but we sadly don't live in a logical world anymore. I'm certain a part of the reason they used the simulation is to try to get an emotional response so they're more likely to get the funding they need. They say science has become 'political' these days, but that's just because the people with the money don't think science alone is worth spending money on.

[Zantos]

We will be fine, our children probably as well. Our children children will have to worry about it, maybe, we have our own problems right now that need to be fixed for example inequality in our society is a much more pressing issue than acidification of our oceans. If we, as a society, are still not able to create a world where everyone can be happy, have shelter and food then our species is not worth saving anyway. That's my PoV.

Fix our species related issues first, then worry about the planet when everyone feels happy.

Sorry, but that wont work. It could take generations to fix those issues. By the time they get fixed, guess what? We wont have a livable planet any longer. You cannot be narrow minded in what you try to fix. The resources to fix each problem is different. We can live and fix society if our planet survives. If the planet dies, there wont be a society to fix.

[ohiostate124]

Thank you for the article, although the error didn't exactly translate into the ocean's warming being inaccurate, rather it's less intense than previously thought: between 10-70% instead of 80%.

That’s quite a wide range.

[Zantos]

It probably isn't the first step, and we're likely only seeing a fraction of what was done here. You are correct though, it should be enough to simply have a theory with data pushed as far as possible to get funding for more research, but we sadly don't live in a logical world anymore. I'm certain a part of the reason they used the simulation is to try to get an emotional response so they're more likely to get the funding they need. They say science has become 'political' these days, but that's just because the people with the money don't think science alone is worth spending money on.

It is a major issue. Especially when people get tired of the emotional end and start to ignore it. Without the facts to back it up, an emotional appeal falls apart and holds no weight. So the people with the money wont care since they are no longer being pressured.

Honestly? We are probably screwed. The ones with the money just don't appreciate nor care about the issues. You have world leaders all over the place on the subject and its importance as well. We have no united front and no clear education on it.

[Pterodactylus]

The article says no one even checked the seafloor but you want us back in the medieval age based on a computer model LOL

Herpy derpy doo, blah blah, derpy day. LOL

[The Stormbringer]

@Zantos I'll still hold out hope, I don't think it's too late. It's also possible that when things really get bad, we'll pull something out of our collective asses to stave off extinction, even if most of us die.