If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.

[Revoltingest]

Why is the article "stupid #$@?"

The problem is that the title isn't believable, & it doesn't match the predictions within the article.
Certainly a reduction in oxygen percentage would be a problem for many, but we wouldn't run out of breathable air.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

The world is going to run out of breathable air by the year 2100.

Dosent that strike you as being a bit melodramatic and over the top?

People don't buy into this kind of. alarmist propaganda. I think it's fairly safe to say we will not be dropping dead by 2100 from a lack of breathable air.

So your only criticism is that it sounds unintuitive? Think of how much the world changed from 1900 to 2000.

 

[The Hammer]

The world is going to run out of breathable air by the year 2100.

Dosent that strike you as being a bit melodramatic and over the top?

People don't buy into this kind of. alarmist propaganda. I think it's fairly safe to say we will not be dropping dead by 2100 from a lack of breathable air.

Melodramatic and over the top? Not at all. It isn't saying we are going to drop dead at the year 2100, the article states that we could potentially cause a 6 degree C climb in ocean temperature by 2100, which will halt oxygen production and lead to death. You are simplifying it.
It is a possibility and one that hasn't been fully explored yet. Regardless, of what the consequences of our actions are actually going to be (None of it is pretty or good for us or the environment), we need to lessen our greenhouse gas emissions, and find a way to use renewable energy sources, over fossil fuels.

 

[dust1n]

Even within the IPCC, and many other political agencies- the debate is about the cause of the 'hiatus' since the 90's a word which implies it will one day resume of course! Remember that vast ice sheets covered much of the globe only a few thousand years ago- and retreated without a single SUV or capitalist or conservative. The Earth's climate is highly dynamic, and there are very interesting scientific reasons for this as opposed to computer simulated anthropomorphic Hollywood disaster movies.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

First paragraph in your reference:

"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."

More info:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

and again, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, IPCC measures 'no significant acceleration in sea level rise'

if this ever stops or reverses, we might have real problems to worry about!

Pretty bad when your own source doesn't even agree with you.
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

In actuality, the main effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect if it ever showed up would be LESS erratic weather. Scientifically this is not even controversial.

That is not what the theory predicts.

Consider Venus: thick 98% CO2 atmos, runaway greenhouse effect- temps of several hundred degrees... and hardly a breath of wind at the surface.

Earth and Venus are not even comparable. For one, it's much closer to the sun, meaning it can't be like Earth in such a way. For two, the atmospheres are different, which means Venus can't be compared to Earth in such a way. And, finally, there is zero life on Venus, meaning it can't be compared to the Earth in such a way.

You sound like an intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you you are not smart enough to scrutinize the science yourself, you are.

Yes, but when it comes to things not proven, such as ideas of a multiverse model.

 

[dust1n]

Consider Venus: thick 98% CO2 atmos, runaway greenhouse effect- temps of several hundred degrees... and hardly a breath of wind at the surface.

This ain't the first time I've seen this one neither.

"The most detailed record of cloud motion in the atmosphere of Venus chronicled by ESA’s Venus Express has revealed that the planet’s winds have steadily been getting faster over the last six years.

Venus is well known for its curious super-rotating atmosphere, which whips around the planet once every four Earth days. This is in stark contrast to the rotation of the planet itself – the length of the day – which takes a comparatively laborious 243 Earth days...

When Venus Express arrived at the planet in 2006, average cloud-top wind speeds between latitudes 50º on either side of the equator were clocked at roughly 300 km/h. The results of two separate studies have revealed that these already remarkably rapid winds are becoming even faster, increasing to 400 km/h over the course of the mission."

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...ss/The_fast_winds_of_Venus_are_getting_faster

Where do people get this made up stuff about atmosphere of other planets, seriously...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Melodramatic and over the top? Not at all. It isn't saying we are going to drop dead at the year 2100, the article states that we could potentially cause a 6 degree C climb in ocean temperature by 2100, which will halt oxygen production and lead to death. You are simplifying it.
It is a possibility and one that hasn't been fully explored yet. Regardless, of what the consequences of our actions are actually going to be (None of it is pretty or good for us or the environment), we need to lessen our greenhouse gas emissions, and find a way to use renewable energy sources, over fossil fuels.

Is that really the case however by which the urgency suggests that we act before the year 2100 comes around? What I'm basically asking is, what other than mathematical or stastical material can be brought to the forefront so as to get more folks on board with what is suggested is likely to happen, and will it even happen as such models point out? Is there any track record of predictive modeling that essentally came to pass already to verify it's reliability and accuracy?

It seems the issue of warming oceans and atmospheric concerns go as far back as 2009. It seems to still, to this day, be a contentious and unresolvable point so far as far as predictive modeling goes and the manner by which things actually turn out.

 

[Kirran]

Yup, meanwhile back in reality for anyone that's interested

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

Who do you think is funding this massive conspiracy to convince the world that climate change is a reality?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So your only criticism is that it sounds unintuitive? Think of how much the world changed from 1900 to 2000.

In what way? Population? Technology?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

In what way? Population? Technology?

Both, but the first is more staggering in a sense:

 

[columbus]

In what way? Population? Technology?

Change to the biosphere. The tiny little speck of the universe in which humans can survive. The tiny little skin on this third rock from the sun upon which we depend.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe this is why we need to refer to the actual study itself (which is linked in the article), rather than Yahoo's interpretation of it.

Original Article

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

pp 1-29

First online: 25 November 2015

Mathematical Modelling of Plankton–Oxygen Dynamics Under the Climate Change

• Yadigar SekerciAffiliated withDepartment of Mathematics, University of Leicester
• , Sergei PetrovskiiAffiliated withDepartment of Mathematics, University of LeicesterEmail author

Abstract
Ocean dynamics is known to have a strong effect on the global climate change and on the composition of the atmosphere. In particular, it is estimated that about 70 % of the atmospheric oxygen is produced in the oceans due to the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton. However, the rate of oxygen production depends on water temperature and hence can be affected by the global warming. In this paper, we address this issue theoretically by considering a model of a coupled plankton–oxygen dynamics where the rate of oxygen production slowly changes with time to account for the ocean warming. We show that a sustainable oxygen production is only possible in an intermediate range of the production rate. If, in the course of time, the oxygen production rate becomes too low or too high, the system’s dynamics changes abruptly, resulting in the oxygen depletion and plankton extinction. Our results indicate that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on global scale (which, if happens, obviously can kill most of life on Earth) is another possible catastrophic consequence of the global warming, a global ecological disaster that has been overlooked.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11538-015-0126-0

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even within the IPCC, and many other political agencies- the debate is about the cause of the 'hiatus' since the 90's a word which implies it will one day resume of course! Remember that vast ice sheets covered much of the globe only a few thousand years ago- and retreated without a single SUV or capitalist or conservative. The Earth's climate is highly dynamic, and there are very interesting scientific reasons for this as opposed to computer simulated anthropomorphic Hollywood disaster movies.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

and again, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, IPCC measures 'no significant acceleration in sea level rise'

if this ever stops or reverses, we might have real problems to worry about!




well when I was at school the prediction was global cooling, the cause was the same- 'us', and the solutions were the same, a transfer of wealth and power from individuals to politicians.

In actuality, the main effect of an enhanced greenhouse effect if it ever showed up would be LESS erratic weather. Scientifically this is not even controversial.
Consider Venus: thick 98% CO2 atmos, runaway greenhouse effect- temps of several hundred degrees... and hardly a breath of wind at the surface.

Because the greenhouse effect insulates and evens out global temps- less contrast in air mass temps= less violent weather. That doesn't require a computer sim! Just look out your window in the springtime when hot and cold air masses collide with greatest contrast



like IPCC 'expert' Sharmind Neelormi, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice?

You sound like an intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you you are not smart enough to scrutinize the science yourself, you are.

I've seen you make this claim so many times (along with all the others), despite the fact that it has been refuted every time you post it.
But since you think it's true, please provide scientific studies indicating some kind of scientific consensus that the earth is (was) in a state of global cooling.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Change to the biosphere. The tiny little speck of the universe in which humans can survive. The tiny little skin on this third rock from the sun upon which we depend.
Tom

The biosphere is pretty dynamic and fluid to begin with. People have been saying changes like this have happened before. I just want to know what precisely what it is that we are doing that is accelerating us into apparant oblivian by which somehow warrants the modeling like that from my op.


There is a persistent and deliberate focus on reducing our carbon footprint , yet the primary source oftentimes looked at is from human activity but nobody seems to know exactly where and how all this is coming about with the insistence it's entirely humans and not that of natural processes.

Let me ask right now how the oceans are affected by human activity. What is the primary blame by which we can point a finger toward in saying, Yes, this is the primary problem that is affecting our climate. Here's what needs to be done."

So far, we've covered everything from factories to cow farts. Yet we are still going on about the continuation of Global Warming unabated with no end in sight or any progress to show for it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything at all. I'm glad to see new innovation and technology being developed to find alternative solutions. God knows how long we have been stagnet in that regard, but I still can't figure out why we keep pushing the alarm buttons without having a clear cut plan of action that all people can agree on that's equitable in implementing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The biosphere is pretty dynamic and fluid to begin with. People have been saying changes like this have happened before. I just want to know what precisely what it is that we are doing that is accelerating us into apparant oblivian by which somehow warrants the modeling like that from my op.

We are massively polluting, plundering the Earth, and even causing a non-natural extinction. What we are experiencing has never happened before.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We are massively polluting, plundering the Earth, and even causing a non-natural extinction. What we are experiencing has never happened before.

Yes but how exactly. What is it that people are doing right now that a finger can be pointed at? Where is all the greenhouse gasses coming from in such quantity that It's terraforming the planet?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where is all the greenhouse gasses coming from in such quantity that It's terraforming the planet?

Our use of oil, factory farms (especially with cows and the amount of methane gas they produce), our massive pollution, resource consumption, all the toxins we put into the Earth, our economy (especially in regards to overseas shipping), and many of our bad habits (such as food and energy waste). Really, we don't have enough fingers to point, not unless we don't mind pointing at a bunch of different things for awhile. We have such a general level of apathy towards the environment that not many in the green movement realize the dye used for their particular shade of green in their logos is one of the worst dyes for the environment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Our use of oil, factory farms (especially with cows and the amount of methane gas they produce), our massive pollution, resource consumption, all the toxins we put into the Earth, our economy (especially in regards to overseas shipping), and many of our bad habits (such as food and energy waste). Really, we don't have enough fingers to point, not unless we don't mind pointing at a bunch of different things for awhile. We have such a general level of apathy towards the environment that not many in the green movement realize the dye used for their particular shade of green in their logos is one of the worst dyes for the environment.

How is that determined? Do we count various sources of greenhouse emitting gas and calculate an estimate of how much is generated to see if that quantity is sufficient enough to effectively create the climate changes we are talking about?

If there is such a figure available? It would be interesting to know as to just how much greenhouse gas is required to be in the air to effect the changes we are experiencing and what the quantity is right now at this moment.

I'm having some difficulty finding a source to look at which has determined what the required amount is, and where we fall at this moment in time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is that determined? Do we count various sources of greenhouse emitting gas and calculate an estimate of how much is generated to see if that quantity is sufficient enough to effectively create the climate changes we are talking about?

If there is such a figure available, it would be interesting to know as to just how much greenhouse gas is required to be in the air to effect the changes we are experiencing and what the quantity is right now at this moment.

I'm having some difficulty finding a source to look at that has determined what the required amount is and where we fall at this moment in time.

There really is no "x-pounds of carbons = y-increase in temperature." However, we do know that carbons do reflect reflected solar radiation (the greenhouse effect), and we do see the same general trend that has been since the Industrial Revolution, which is that the Earth has been warming since we have been pumping a ton of carbon into the environment, deforesting like crazy, and raising livestock on a scale never seen before. It's more of a "we see this happening at the same time we see this happening."
And, really, it's not just the climate but our general attitude towards the environment. We'll clear entire forests for shopping malls and resources to make things that won't last, we-humans-are responsible for the ongoing extinction (from over-hunting, exploding population, deforestation, and other reasons), we are changing entire ecosystems very rapidly and much quicker than what nature can keep up with, and we rape the land to extract resources and leave devastation in our wake. Really global warming/climate change is smaller part of our much larger problem (which is that we don't give a damn about the environment, the Earth, each other, or other living organisms).

 

[Twilight Hue]

There really is no "x-pounds of carbons = y-increase in temperature." However, we do know that carbons do reflect reflected solar radiation (the greenhouse effect), and we do see the same general trend that has been since the Industrial Revolution, which is that the Earth has been warming since we have been pumping a ton of carbon into the environment, deforesting like crazy, and raising livestock on a scale never seen before. It's more of a "we see this happening at the same time we see this happening."
And, really, it's not just the climate but our general attitude towards the environment. We'll clear entire forests for shopping malls and resources to make things that won't last, we-humans-are responsible for the ongoing extinction (from over-hunting, exploding population, deforestation, and other reasons), we are changing entire ecosystems very rapidly and much quicker than what nature can keep up with, and we rape the land to extract resources and leave devastation in our wake. Really global warming/climate change is smaller part of our much larger problem (which is that we don't give a damn about the environment, the Earth, each other, or other living organisms).

Appreciate you responding Shadow Wolf. Thanks.