Satellite Study Shows Drop In Ocean's Plankton Level 46
An anonymous reader submits: "CNN reports there seems to be a dramatic drop in N. hemishpere phytoplankton and a net overall decline in the ocean's overall phytoplankton population. This has very serious implications for the overall food chain and also the scrubbing of CO2 in the atmosphere."
SeaWiFS (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe el Nino? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe el Nino? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a very scary thing. I remember my bio teacher in high school saying that the plankton were responsible for the majority of the co2 -> 02 conversions. They also feed fish and whales. If they continue to drop, we may soon have dead lifeless oceans. I'm not trying to sound like a fear monger, but...
Re:Or maybe el Nino? (Score:1, Insightful)
you'd better be! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or maybe el Nino? (Score:1)
I have the explanation then. Ever since whales have become a protected species they have been multiplying in record numbers! As a result, the plankton have suffered. The whales are a danger to us all! Destroy all whales!
Nuke the whales!
Re:Or maybe el Nino? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Or maybe el Nino? (Score:1)
> I'm not trying to sound like a fear monger, but...
Boo!
Not a quick change? (Score:1)
No Plankton? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No Plankton? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:No Plankton? (Score:1)
Actually seems like a shift from N to S (Score:5, Interesting)
Note, though, an important sentence in the NASA release that is missing from the CNN account:
"Also, summer plankton concentrations rose by over 50 percent in both the Northern Indian and the Equatorial Atlantic Oceans since the mid-80s. Large areas of the Indian Ocean showed substantial increases during all four seasons."
There's still a net loss, but the real phenomenon appears to be a shifting of phytoplankton from north to south.
Re:Actually seems like a shift from N to S (Score:2)
There's still a net loss, but the real phenomenon appears to be a shifting of phytoplankton from north to south.
You mean, shifting in a direction opposite to where most developed countries are located [except for Oz]?
Re:Actually seems like a shift from N to S (Score:1)
In spite of all of this (Score:1)
UVs (Score:4, Interesting)
Plankton is sensitive to ultraviolet rays (in the "it kills it" sense), with all the talk of ozone layers and holes in the recent years, I wonder if this might be related.
Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Last Post!! (Score:1)
Thi is a "teeth-gritter" of an article... (Score:2)
Yes.... (Score:3, Funny)
The decline is only relative to 20 years ago. (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, we read way too much into research findings.
And how do you know that? (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing for certain, if we are going to fight global warming we really can't afford substantial decreases in oceanic carbon fixation. We may have to do things like pumping nutrient-laden deep ocean water up to the surface to overcome the increased adverse thermal gradient and slowing winds (both of which tend to let the water stratify instead of mix).
Re:And how do you know that? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know that because the article cites a drop *since* *1980*. Had there been a consistent drop since another time period...or even a stable period prior to that time, it should be mentioned in the article.
The point is the only information in the article is that using satellite data, phytoplankton levels have dropped since 1980. From that information, there is only one thing that can be stated with any degree of certainty: that levels of phytoplankton are lower than they were 22 years ago.
As much as the wild-eyed prophets would like to believe otherwise, that's not much to go on...
We need the good package (Score:2)
Of course the Bush administration would rather we pick up the bad package... But hey, we just need to behave like Real Men.
Global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? A simple matter of common sense. You constantly see headlines in the liberal-news media similar to "2001 Average Global Temperature Highest Since 1670" which, of course, begs the question "Who/what was producing all the green house gases in 1670 that caused the Earth's temperature to rise so dramatically?"
The answer is noone/nothing. There was no above average volcanic activity. There was certainly no man-made greenhouse gases. There was extraordinarily little man-made pollution. It was, in fact, a normal cycle in the Earth's temperature. We know that the Earth's temperature goes up and down over the course of hundreds and thousands of years.
Not to mention of course the fact that 30 years ago we were heading into an iceage, and all advised to buy warm clothes. Won't this new global warming simply offset the predicted ice age of 30 years ago?
The fact is these enviro-nuts don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. There has been good scientific data produced, of course, but the media constantly reports tbe findings of liberal-financed propoganda from neo-hippy enviromental nutsos that will do/say anything to get their point across - that man is bad, and nature is good. It's a typical rage-against-the-machine type attitude.
Anyway, in my ramblings I lost track of my point: If we take the plankton data at face value and accept it as true (Ha-ha) and we further stipulate that global warming is a reality - Maybe 'global warming' is directly attributable to the "dramatic drop" in phytoplankton in the N. Hemisphere. Why does the reverse have to be true? If memory serves, something like 80% of all oxygen is produced from cyanobacteria. I don't have exact figures (I never do:P) but thats a whole fuck-ton of carbom dioxide absorbtion.
Don't get me wrong - pollution is bad. It obviously affects wild life populations (Prince William Sound, anyone:P) It's stinky, it's yucky and I don't want it in my back yard. But this idea that it's going to cause the flooding the world, that it will unleach monster hurricanes upon Oklahoma is rediculous.
Re:Global warming (Score:2)
When politically-obsessive folks -- your "liberal media conspiracy" asides make it all too clear -- refer to "common sense," the rest of us keep one hand on our wallets.
Re:Global warming (Score:1)
However, I simply don't believe that coal tar, nor the exhaust from my car's tail pipe are going to somehow cause the temperature of the PLANET EARTH to change in any significant way. And in the event that I'm wrong, and it does impact the Earth's temperature (as if) I still don't believe it will have any significant impact on anyone (Any more so than normal fluctuations in temperature anyway).
Yes, I realize it's almost heresy to say these days, but I firmly believe it:P
You should note that I never said anything about a 'liberal media conspiracy.' I simply said the 'liberal media' - meaning news media outlets with liberal leanings.
But you dragged it out of me. If you honestly believe American politics is not riddled with conspiracies (Richard Mellon Scaife anyone?), I have some nice land for cheap on the Big Island of Hawaii you might be interested in:P
Wake up and smell the cash:P Why exactly do you think there are so many overlapping 'think tanks' and 'independent newspapers' in Washington DC? What possible purpose does The Heritage Foundation serve, other than a big umbrella organization that divvies up money from conservative billionaires and delegates it to other 'think tanks' to further their self-serving causes. How is it that the American Spectator, which consistently loses millions of dollars, is able to keep the presses going? Thanks to cash infusions from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife.
Don't you find it odd that a shadowy man, from Old Money Philadelphia, who never gives interviews and you rarely hear of is largely responsible for the current conservative control of the US Congress, and the election (ahem, appointment) of our current President? Newt Gingrich himself has said as much.
hmm (Score:1)
hey, we're doin it to mammoth, plankton are much smaller
-binky.
Where's S.L.O.P. when you need it? (Score:1)
Actually, that does not seem so funny anymore.