Atlantic Ocean ‘pretty much dead’

[Concerto]

A frightening prospect. The amount of plankton in the Atlantic is at a new low. This is the bottom of the food chain for all marine creatures.

Atlantic Ocean 'pretty much dead' says scientist as plankton wiped out - Marine Industry News

 

[Boathook]

A frightening prospect. The amount of plankton in the Atlantic is at a new low. This is the bottom of the food chain for all marine creatures.

Atlantic Ocean 'pretty much dead' says scientist as plankton wiped out - Marine Industry News

Not good. I also heard somewhere that the Atlantic current (conveyer) has also slowed down.

 

[Adios]

Wow. Underreported somewhat for an extinction level event. Instead we're supposed to focus on reducing atmospheric CO2 which plankton rely on?

 

[Wansworth]

Not good. I also heard somewhere that the Atlantic current (conveyer) has also slowed down.

We are f….ked. ?

 

[Wansworth]

Bit of a conversation stopper?

 

[bikedaft]

it does sound bad - but one small scale study - any other studies replicate this? eek.

 

[Frogmogman]

That is rather alarming

 

[penfold]

That's concerning data and needs follow-up work, but the rest of the article is daily mail-esque pearl-clutching and really unhelpful.

 

[Adios]

Not wishing to get too much into it here but I feels its worth calling them out on mixing in anti-CO2 dogma on this. Just a quick standard understanding of plankton: "At the beginning of life on Earth, these tiny opportunistic organisms were the first to learn how to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and metabolize it into the fuel for life, O2" And they're still doing it. Could plankton be "overloaded by CO2" due to our historically ultra high current level? Clearly not:


I question if the use of "overloaded" in the article was even from the researchers as its not in quotes. It might have been adlibbed by the journalist though the researchers aren't complaining as they proudly link to the article on their home page Home | Goes Foundation I searched their whole site and the words overload and overloaded are not on there in any context.

What they actually keep saying is stuff like "Humanity has been systematically destroying terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems for the last 70 years since the chemical revolution and the invention of plastic and toxic-for-ever chemicals such as DDT." but perhaps that not very "of the moment" so then they promote their side of things to the CO2 obsessives by saying "The oceans represent our greatest carbon bank with a potential to sequester most of the carbon generated from the burning of fossil fuels". Fair enough if you have to use that angle to get people to take this issue seriously, whatever works. But I can't find anything saying plankton are harmed by CO2.

CO2 fear mongering is a hustle. Perhaps they want more funding by getting on the anti-CO2 gravy train? or allowing the misrepresentation in the article is a price worth paying for the rest of their work to get some publicity? Perhaps if they don't weave in something about CO2 no mainstream publication will publish them?

Or it might be more sincerely from the hope that the anti-CO2 agenda is the most likely to succeed at forcing behavioural change. From one of their documents: "We don’t immediately think of cosmetics or sunscreens being toxic to marine life, but the reality is remarkably different, and unknowingly, each and every one of us is responsible for climate change and for destroying our planet." We've all been convinced (perhaps falsely its looking a bit like) that sunscreen is essential so would we risk cancer from the sun to save some distant plankton? Why do the leg work convincing people on that when they are already convinced about CO2 so just hitch your wagon to that train even if its dishonest.

 

[europe172]

Not wishing to get too much into it here but I feels its worth calling them out on mixing in anti-CO2 dogma on this. Just a quick standard understanding of plankton: "At the beginning of life on Earth, these tiny opportunistic organisms were the first to learn how to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and metabolize it into the fuel for life, O2" And they're still doing it. Could plankton be "overloaded by CO2" due to our historically ultra high current level? Clearly not:

View attachment 139117
I question if the use of "overloaded" in the article was even from the researchers as its not in quotes. It might have been adlibbed by the journalist though the researchers aren't complaining as they proudly link to the article on their home page Home | Goes Foundation I searched their whole site and the words overload and overloaded are not on there in any context.

What they actually keep saying is stuff like "Humanity has been systematically destroying terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems for the last 70 years since the chemical revolution and the invention of plastic and toxic-for-ever chemicals such as DDT." but perhaps that not very "of the moment" so then they promote their side of things to the CO2 obsessives by saying "The oceans represent our greatest carbon bank with a potential to sequester most of the carbon generated from the burning of fossil fuels". Fair enough if you have to use that angle to get people to take this issue seriously, whatever works. But I can't find anything saying plankton are harmed by CO2.

CO2 fear mongering is a hustle. Perhaps they want more funding by getting on the anti-CO2 gravy train? or allowing the misrepresentation in the article is a price worth paying for the rest of their work to get some publicity? Perhaps if they don't weave in something about CO2 no mainstream publication will publish them?

Or it might be more sincerely from the hope that the anti-CO2 agenda is the most likely to succeed at forcing behavioural change. From one of their documents: "We don’t immediately think of cosmetics or sunscreens being toxic to marine life, but the reality is remarkably different, and unknowingly, each and every one of us is responsible for climate change and for destroying our planet." We've all been convinced (perhaps falsely its looking a bit like) that sunscreen is essential so would we risk cancer from the sun to save some distant plankton? Why do the leg work convincing people on that when they are already convinced about CO2 so just hitch your wagon to that train even if its dishonest.

I understood that it was the ph value that is driving plankton reduction.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I really don't think there is enough information to analyse and come to meaningful conclusions in what is a piece of journalism as opposed to a scientific paper with a lot of scary phrases designed to catch the readers attention. One of the points that seems immediately obvious is that they have it appears concentrated their sample collection along coast lines, what about the deep mid ocean? There are many questions to ask before something like this is taken as gospel.

 

[Adios]

I understood that it was the ph value that is driving plankton reduction.

I see plenty of people saying CO2 is a problem for that but how does that square with these researchers saying as though its a good thing "The oceans represent our greatest carbon bank with a potential to sequester most of the carbon generated from the burning of fossil fuels" and how does it square with there previously being 20x the atmospheric CO2 and god knows how much more plankton pulling it into the sea at a healthy time of increasing biodiversity.

Take this as an example Ocean acidification fancy looking website, no doubt healthy income for all involved in this organisation but does either of those things make it credible or could it be politically biased. "In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units." So its only about CO2 so among other things we'll have to start eating insects instead of cows due to their farts (ask me if i'm joking in 10 years time). What about the industrial pollution that caused acid rain? Is the clue in the name? All rivers lead to the sea. About the only thing I know is I don't feel any automatic compulsion or obligation to "trust the science."

 

[Adios]

I really don't think there is enough information to analyse and come to meaningful conclusions in what is a piece of journalism as opposed to a scientific paper with a lot of scary phrases designed to catch the readers attention. One of the points that seems immediately obvious is that they have it appears concentrated their sample collection along coast lines, what about the deep mid ocean? There are many questions to ask before something like this is taken as gospel.

photosynthesis isn't much of a thing in the deep ocean so presumably plankton is just a surface thing. They are asking for yachts to collect mid ocean samples. Will be skewed by time of the year and location the ARC runs then I expect. If its that big a deal its a shame if they can't get funding to go out and get some themselves. Commercial ships as well.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I see plenty of people saying CO2 is a problem for that but how does that square with these researchers saying as though its a good thing "The oceans represent our greatest carbon bank with a potential to sequester most of the carbon generated from the burning of fossil fuels" and how does it square with there previously being 20x the atmospheric CO2 and god knows how much more plankton pulling it into the sea at a healthy time of increasing biodiversity.

Take this as an example Ocean acidification fancy looking website, no doubt healthy income for all involved in this organisation but does either of those things make it credible or could it be politically biased. "In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units." So its only about CO2 so among other things we'll have to start eating insects instead of cows due to their farts (ask me if i'm joking in 10 years time). What about the industrial pollution that caused acid rain? Is the clue in the name? All rivers lead to the sea. About the only thing I know is I don't feel any automatic compulsion or obligation to "trust the science."

It's not the science that I don't trust it's the presentation and occasionally a conclusion looking for a reason or evidence to justify it.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

photosynthesis isn't much of a thing in the deep ocean so presumably plankton is just a surface thing. They are asking for yachts to collect mid ocean samples. Will be skewed by time of the year and location the ARC runs then I expect. If its that big a deal its a shame if they can't get funding to go out and get some themselves. Commercial ships as well.

Interesting paper here, as I am not a zoologist I am going to have to reread it a couple of times.

Plankton distribution and ocean dispersal

 

[Adios]

It's not the science that I don't trust it's the presentation and occasionally a conclusion looking for a reason or evidence to justify it.

100% plus trial design so sometimes it really is the science thats flawed. Well its the scientists every time isn't it. Science done without sincerity isn't science.

 

[capnsensible]

I really don't think there is enough information to analyse and come to meaningful conclusions in what is a piece of journalism as opposed to a scientific paper with a lot of scary phrases designed to catch the readers attention. One of the points that seems immediately obvious is that they have it appears concentrated their sample collection along coast lines, what about the deep mid ocean? There are many questions to ask before something like this is taken as gospel.

Agree to an extent, but what about this bit:

The research has been conducted by GOES (Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation) using its yacht Copepod which has collected samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean. From Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic and is currently in Colombia, before setting sail for Panama.

So it seems the do have ocean sampling. However, I've sailed east to west six times over the past twenty years. Last time three years ago. The major thing we saw was the huge increase in an orange seaweed forming vast carpets across the ocean,. This stuff ends up on the Atlantic facing side of the Windies. Always seems to have plenty of seaside near it. I arrived by air a few years ago to St Lucia via Barbados. On finals from my widow seat it was clear to see these vast carpets of weed that look like oil spills. So I'm not questioning the veracity of those compiling the scientific evidence, but how does it jive with what I've seen as an increasing biomass?

West East I've always seen gazillions of jellyfish (various). What do they consume?

And last trip in that direction almost every day, Antigua to Horta, lots of pods of whales. Perhaps there has been a catastrophic change in the last few years? Hope not!

Not forgetting the much maligned Greta. The boat she sailed on is involved ina science research project and continuously takes samples wherever they go.

 

[Adios]

Agree to an extent, but what about this bit:

The research has been conducted by GOES (Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation) using its yacht Copepod which has collected samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean. From Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic and is currently in Colombia, before setting sail for Panama.

So it seems the do have ocean sampling. However, I've sailed east to west six times over the past twenty years. Last time three years ago. The major thing we saw was the huge increase in an orange seaweed forming vast carpets across the ocean,. This stuff ends up on the Atlantic facing side of the Windies. Always seems to have plenty of seaside near it. I arrived by air a few years ago to St Lucia via Barbados. On finals from my widow seat it was clear to see these vast carpets of weed that look like oil spills. So I'm not questioning the veracity of those compiling the scientific evidence, but how does it jive with what I've seen as an increasing biomass?

West East I've always seen gazillions of jellyfish (various). What do they consume?

And last trip in that direction almost every day, Antigua to Horta, lots of pods of whales. Perhaps there has been a catastrophic change in the last few years? Hope not!

Not forgetting the much maligned Greta. The boat she sailed on is involved ina science research project and continuously takes samples wherever they go.

still its a huge ocean and these natural things tend to be patchy and fluctuating probably. Needs more than 2 boats if its that big a deal. I wonder if blaming CO2 even partly would have a negative effect on investment to their program. If its CO2 then nothing else needs knowing as that's already on the global agenda to deal with.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Agree to an extent, but what about this bit:

The research has been conducted by GOES (Global Oceanic Environmental Survey Foundation) using its yacht Copepod which has collected samples from the Atlantic and the Caribbean. From Scotland, it sailed along French and Portuguese coasts before crossing the Atlantic and is currently in Colombia, before setting sail for Panama.

So it seems the do have ocean sampling. However, I've sailed east to west six times over the past twenty years. Last time three years ago. The major thing we saw was the huge increase in an orange seaweed forming vast carpets across the ocean,. This stuff ends up on the Atlantic facing side of the Windies. Always seems to have plenty of seaside near it. I arrived by air a few years ago to St Lucia via Barbados. On finals from my widow seat it was clear to see these vast carpets of weed that look like oil spills. So I'm not questioning the veracity of those compiling the scientific evidence, but how does it jive with what I've seen as an increasing biomass?

West East I've always seen gazillions of jellyfish (various). What do they consume?

And last trip in that direction almost every day, Antigua to Horta, lots of pods of whales. Perhaps there has been a catastrophic change in the last few years? Hope not!

Not forgetting the much maligned Greta. The boat she sailed on is involved ina science research project and continuously takes samples wherever they go.

As it says it sailed coastlines sampling no doubt it did sample on crossing along with some other vessels, the article mentions some 500 data points hardly a representative sample of the Atlantic when you consider that most will have been take on the costal journey.
Have you not heard of the Sargasso Sea and seaweed the breeding ground of eels.

 

[capnsensible]

As it says it sailed coastlines sampling no doubt it did sample on crossing along with some other vessels, the article mentions some 500 data points hardly a representative sample of the Atlantic when you consider that most will have been take on the costal journey.
Have you not heard of the Sargasso Sea and seaweed the breeding ground of eels.

Of course.

Here is the sargasso sea.