There's a beautiful irony in this comment being do voted, as it is people aggressively ignoring the truth of what the commenter is say regarding our habit of aggressively ignoring and denying hard truths.
It’s obviously horrible, but it also means that it will allow other creatures to grow to fill that space. It’s like a forest fire. Sure the devastation is bad but there’s also renewal afterwards. It’s not like it will remain barren forever.
How fast do these creatures reproduce? Are they going to generate billions in between now and the next hot season? How many more will die this hot season? Will even more die next hot season?
It’s not “hot season”. It was a historically abnormal heat wave. I lived in Vancouver. You don’t normally see temperatures like that.
It doesn’t have to reproduce right away, that’s just unrealistic. But the larger amounts of free space will mean a land grab by the survivors. That’s how it works in nature.
If the climate changes and the water heats up then the ecosystem will be replaced by those animals that would survive in warmer water. That’s science.
Its also called "ecological collapse" when a place has catastrophic dieoff. It can take decades to recover, even with species that can survive in the new conditions.
(Meanwhile poor humans are trying to grow crops and raise animals. We may get very hungry, for decades)
That's a dumb example, there's no life in those environments.
You could look to the intertidal regions near the equator for more reasonable comparison. They are much less rich in life compared to the waters around Vancouver.
Ah, that final newly added sentence turns your post into something that finally makes any sense at all and no longer contradicts GP’s point that I am arguing.
The point others and I are making is that life does not expand arbitrarily, or in a weaker form, the life that may expand will be a much less desirable environment for us humans than the present.
Even though you deny it, we can very simply create environments, right here on earth, where life as we know it will not be possible. Look into an operating steel smelter for example, just to remove any subtlety and ambiguity.
Sure, maybe ‘Science’ can replace all of our biosphere with extremophiles, but I for one do not desire to live in such a world. I like trees and birds and mammals and lizards and (you get the point).
I fear that much of the poison we leave behind, and the extinction of so much biodiversity, will make such regeneration much slower than it would otherwise need to be.
My greatest fear -- I've seen individual animals loose the will to live. What if a biotope loses the will? What if life decides not to come back?
It’s not that simple. As the article mentions, if weather continues to warm and these events become more common, we could end up with seasonal die outs of intertidal species. It’s not immediately evident from that statement, but that would completely transform the biodiversity of the coastline.
Currently it’s one of vast abundance, but this transformation would very likely reduce that abundance and its diversity due to a foundation of the food chain disappearing regularly.
It’s nice to think something would just replace these species, but they’ve already reduced dramatically over the last 100 years and nothing has begun to shoehorn its way into the system.
It seems the worse this gets, the less overall abundance and diversity this coastline can support.
If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science.
There are creatures around the world that thrive in warmer waters. The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
> If the waters heat up are you saying that no creatures will ever survive? That’s anti-science.
• Science is a way of finding out about the world, not a list of facts.
• No, actually. Rather, these creatures will die and we might lose entire species, significantly reducing biodiversity.
> The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
On an evolutionary timescale, something will fill the niche (if the environment remains constant enough for long enough… not looking likely, if you extrapolate from today), but science most certainly hasn't found that this happens with animals over the course of decades.
Yes, those creatures that died will be dead. When the environment changes and creatures are selected against, they will die out. This is called the Theory of Natural Selection.
Does it suck that it’s happening in situations like this heat wave? Yes.
Should we do whatever we can to stop our contribution to this? Absolutely.
Should we expect that it never should happen? No, otherwise dinosaurs would be roaming the Earth right now. There have been around 20 mass extinction events in the last 500M years.
Are we causing the next mass extinction event? Probably.
Will we be the cause of life to end on Earth? No. Even plastic breaks down and nuclear waste becomes harmless over a geological timeline.
Again, your understanding is pretty basic. Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing. To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science. Life will thrive. Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
> To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science.
Plenty of creatures survive in the arctic. Plenty of creatures survive in the desert. Few creatures survive when you subject them to twice-daily 80°C changes of temperature.
Selection pressures reduce (local) genetic variation. If the selection pressures remain high (i.e. members of a species aren't well-adapted to their environment) then you'll burn through the available genetic variation, you'll run out of individuals, and then the species will go locally extinct.
Evolution isn't magic that “science” discovered. It's a consequence of lower-level rules. You can't reason about many scientific discoveries without reductionism; it seems like you're treating evolution as a Fundamental Law of Nature, when it's more like a non-axiomic property of certain mathematical systems, arising under certain conditions (but not others) in the real world.
> Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
Okay… but that's because the environment after those kinds of nuclear catastrophe isn't actually all that different to the environment that those creatures are adapted to. (That's the once-surprising part.)
Disagree? What adaptions do the plants and animals in those exclusion zones exhibit, and how is that analogous to what would be needed for the situation described in the article?
If you read the article it says in warmer places like Hong Kong the much of the intertidal life dies off every summer. So, yes, if it becomes a regular occurrence life could go from a year round habitat to a seasonal cycle.
Well, it’s scientifically accurate that as abundance and diversity has decreased in our waters, it hasn’t been an opportunity for other species to fill in the gap so to speak.
We are seeing some warmer climate sharks moving further north, but that isn’t helpful to the foundation of our food chain. We do have invasive species of mollusks which have set up camp here permanently, but they seem to suffer and decrease in number just as the native species do. There are invasive crabs, but again, they aren’t about to patch the holes in this system.
Also, it’s important to note that our winter temperatures still hit 6 or 7 degrees Celsius. There are no warm climate creatures I know of who can move in during a hot summer and stick around for winter. That means our previously stable, temperate environment doesn’t appear to be able to be likely to host many creatures in any migratory range I know of.
I’m not a marine biologist, perhaps you know better. This ocean is a passion of mine though, these matters take up a lot of my energy and mental real estate. I want to believe it will thrive very much, but signs really aren’t positive lately.
Apart from this die out, there are a multitude of other dire situations as well. We’ve extirpated several species, caused numerous salmon population extinctions and collapses, the near extinction of a resident killer whale pod, caused the collapse of multiple species of rockfish - the list goes on.
The world has always changed. We only have moderately good climatic records from dendrochronology for the past 1000 years or so. A meteor impact or supervolcanic eruption could disturb the climate far more rapidly than a few tens of decades burning fossil fuels. Life will go on. It always has.
Life will go on, the earth will continue to orbit the sun. Even if the earth was flung away from the sun, life would go on, in the form of subterranean bacteria.
The thing we're concerned about is that humans are apex predators and depend on a functioning food chain to survive. Filter feeders eat algae. Unconstrained algal growth is toxic to fish (salmon) that we eat. Oyster and mussel farms were devastated and some won't see a rebound for at least 3 years if we don't have another event like this. Bears eat salmon, and when they can't find it, they seek other food sources like humans.
This story is a single datum. We've got freak cold snaps on the east coast and Texas. Flooding in Europe. The world is rapidly becoming more hostile to human life.
But yeah, a hot, acidic ocean will still support life -- maybe nothing we can eat for a few hundred generations, but life goes on with or without us. Hotter climes will spread tropical bugs and diseases; life goes on.
But we're still looking for intelligent life that's survived the "hold my beer" great filter. Haven't found such extraterrestrials; jury's still out on terrestrials.
often food chains are actually more of food webs. Most species, especially humans, are adaptable as their environment changes. Look at polar bears. They started out as normal brown bears. Then during the ice age they developed polar attributes, like white fur and maratime diet. If the climate in the arctic warms they will move inland again and likely merge with existing brown bear populations in the taiga. Those that don't adapt will die. That is how evolution works and always has worked.
In the past the environment has changed very rapidly at time. All life eventually dies. That which endures longer is that which adapts.
A warmer more carbon rich atmosphere has some benefits:
Expanded arable regions,
fewer droughts, more rainfall, more carbon for plants to grown (try turning all your carbon in the atmosphere into
rock and let me know how life fares then.)
Carbon based life needs CO2. They have done experiments where a forest is subjected to increased CO2 ppm by plumbing and nozzels. It grew faster and more robustly. Life also needs warmth. During the Eocene epoch some 50 milion years ago the Arctic was sub-tropical and teaming with life.
The difference is that the local ecosystem has evolved for forest fires; this is a massively destabilizing event where we can't predict what the "renewal" will look like and what species will go extinct in the meantime, or how polluted the water will end up being "normally" without the mussel population to keep things in check.
And I don't think the article is implying that the oceans will be barren forever, but that things are changing rapidly, unpredictably, and to an extreme degree that we have no precedent for.
Probably a lot more than that given the population densities suggested in the article.
"1 million mussels died in an area the size of a tennis court."
I think they usually measure small things in terms of mass. Here is a report just for Pugent Sound that suggests annualized reproduction of about 850,000 kg.
What does the number even mean, is it a lot, what is the denominator? Doing a rough back of the envelope calculation, looking at tidal areas, barnacles and other creatures there go from one milliliter to one centimeter square, meaning that the dieoff represented 1000 square meters to 10 hectares, which in all honesty is probably not a lot
If the heat die off has only effected those at the lower levels of the food web I wouldn't like to be high up in it.
There's a chance we'll see increased competition among higher level organisms leading to the depletion of the same low level organisms in adjacent areas until those higher levels have a die off event too allowing them to recover.
Two restaurants I have been to have advised that they can’t get oysters due to the die off that was part of the heat wave.
In the inter tidal zone walking around it was a solid field of mussels before the heat wave. Maybe 10 underfoot, so say 20 per square foot or 180 per square meter.so 1,000,000,000 mussels would occupy 5,000,000 sq meters of intertidal coast. If the intertidal zone is 5m wide that is 1,000,000 meters of coast, or 1000km.
If all of the mussels and oysters died in 1000km of coastline I’d say it is a significant event.
Edit: a million mussels in the area the size of a tennis court? I was thinking of the clams I was walking on in June … definitely weren’t at that density
At some point everyone will be vegan ascetics forever apparently. Including all of our descendants, who will recognize and appreciate how enlightened we are. Curiosity and discussion about other solutions cannot be tolerated lest it jeopardize the coming worldwide ascetic veganism forever awakening.
Facts seem valuable when making individual decisions that affect the planet, especially when we wring our hands and wonder when someone else will do something to solve our environmental problems.
Some of the answers are right there in front of you every day.
I mean... The comment is suggesting a false dichotomy (possibly without meaning it) that options are either seafood or land animal production. I'm not vegan, not even vegeterian, but the only answer I can give in good faith is that "I have to eat" is not a good argument, there's alternatives better for the environment than seafood _or_ land animal production.
No vegan even commented, I find vegan-bashing so much worse than vegan-evangelism. I'm seriously getting vegan fatigue fatigue.
If (1) our current system is unsustainable, and (2) we can't make a difference, then we are, by the most basic rules of logic, (3) headed for a collapse of our current system.
It's a bit strange how often people will aggressively make either point 1 or 2, and then concede that the other is also true, but then decry the 3rd, which follows from 1 and 2, to be ridiculous pessimism.
Yes. A lot. Especially ghost nets and other issues. Land animal production has issues with cruelty and pollution but it’s nowhere near as bad as seafood.
How much of this was farmed seafood? I have a friend right now who is planning on opening fish farms because he feels it will have less of an environmental impact.
I don't get why black soldier fly larvae isn't more common and popular as animal feed. BSF larvae have numerous advantages, including eating their weight in organic matter very quickly, and being a good mix of fat and protein for growing out farmed animals.
The adult flies also have no mouth parts, and do not hang around people or spread diseases as a result.
It killed most of the chipmunks in Eastern Oregon too. The June litter had just emerged, so there were hundreds of baby chipmunks about. After the heat wave, maybe 2 of 20 survived, seemingly none of the juveniles.
Don't know if it is related but, here in the Seattle area, I noticed yesterday that lump Dungeness crab meat at the local market has risen to $55/lb from about $30/lb two-three weeks ago.
Since Scientific American was one of the first to push false articles (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprecedented-hea...) claiming the PNW heatwave was primarily caused by climate change, I’m sharing this analysis from a UW Professor who is considered to be the foremost expert on northwest climate, where he shows that the event was less due to climate change and more due to a rare mix of factors (a black swan event). In other posts he mentions the record breaking event would have taken place even without climate change, but that climate change contributed a few degrees to the peak temperatures. The attribution study he is critiquing itself claims this recent event was a 1 in 1000 years event even with climate change:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-repor...
As others have mentioned it is unclear if a billion creatures is significant or not. But regardless this isn’t going to be a seasonal event.
"In other posts he mentions the record breaking event would have taken place even without climate change, but that climate change contributed a few degrees to the peak temperatures."
The reason that we refer to this phenomenon as climate change now and not global warming is that average temperature doesn't accurately capture the ways that the climate will change as it warms. We will also experience more outlier events, more heat waves and bizarre cold snaps. This is an excellent example of the former; the shift of the Arctic air off of the polar regions south produces other anomalies. But the term "climate change" is intended to capture the increased frequencies of all these kinds of anomalous events, not just the steady increase in average temperature.
61 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadIt doesn’t have to reproduce right away, that’s just unrealistic. But the larger amounts of free space will mean a land grab by the survivors. That’s how it works in nature.
If the climate changes and the water heats up then the ecosystem will be replaced by those animals that would survive in warmer water. That’s science.
(Meanwhile poor humans are trying to grow crops and raise animals. We may get very hungry, for decades)
You could look to the intertidal regions near the equator for more reasonable comparison. They are much less rich in life compared to the waters around Vancouver.
The point others and I are making is that life does not expand arbitrarily, or in a weaker form, the life that may expand will be a much less desirable environment for us humans than the present.
Even though you deny it, we can very simply create environments, right here on earth, where life as we know it will not be possible. Look into an operating steel smelter for example, just to remove any subtlety and ambiguity.
Sure, maybe ‘Science’ can replace all of our biosphere with extremophiles, but I for one do not desire to live in such a world. I like trees and birds and mammals and lizards and (you get the point).
It's july 18. It both is hot season and was an abnormal heat wave.
So the questions are valid.
My greatest fear -- I've seen individual animals loose the will to live. What if a biotope loses the will? What if life decides not to come back?
Currently it’s one of vast abundance, but this transformation would very likely reduce that abundance and its diversity due to a foundation of the food chain disappearing regularly.
It’s nice to think something would just replace these species, but they’ve already reduced dramatically over the last 100 years and nothing has begun to shoehorn its way into the system.
It seems the worse this gets, the less overall abundance and diversity this coastline can support.
There are creatures around the world that thrive in warmer waters. The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
• Science is a way of finding out about the world, not a list of facts.
• No, actually. Rather, these creatures will die and we might lose entire species, significantly reducing biodiversity.
> The space will be reclaimed by other creatures that can survive in that environment. To think otherwise goes against basic science.
On an evolutionary timescale, something will fill the niche (if the environment remains constant enough for long enough… not looking likely, if you extrapolate from today), but science most certainly hasn't found that this happens with animals over the course of decades.
And you know what they say about basic biology…
Yes, those creatures that died will be dead. When the environment changes and creatures are selected against, they will die out. This is called the Theory of Natural Selection.
Does it suck that it’s happening in situations like this heat wave? Yes.
Should we do whatever we can to stop our contribution to this? Absolutely.
Should we expect that it never should happen? No, otherwise dinosaurs would be roaming the Earth right now. There have been around 20 mass extinction events in the last 500M years.
Are we causing the next mass extinction event? Probably.
Will we be the cause of life to end on Earth? No. Even plastic breaks down and nuclear waste becomes harmless over a geological timeline.
Again, your understanding is pretty basic. Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing. To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science. Life will thrive. Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
> Since when is the environment “stable”? Climate is always changing.
Your car is always oxidising. https://xkcd.com/1693/
> To believe that the climate has to be stable in order for life to thrive is anti-science.
Plenty of creatures survive in the arctic. Plenty of creatures survive in the desert. Few creatures survive when you subject them to twice-daily 80°C changes of temperature.
Selection pressures reduce (local) genetic variation. If the selection pressures remain high (i.e. members of a species aren't well-adapted to their environment) then you'll burn through the available genetic variation, you'll run out of individuals, and then the species will go locally extinct.
Evolution isn't magic that “science” discovered. It's a consequence of lower-level rules. You can't reason about many scientific discoveries without reductionism; it seems like you're treating evolution as a Fundamental Law of Nature, when it's more like a non-axiomic property of certain mathematical systems, arising under certain conditions (but not others) in the real world.
> Even a nuclear catastrophe like Chernobyl and Fukushima hasn’t stopped life from taking over in time frames that scientists thought were impossible.
Okay… but that's because the environment after those kinds of nuclear catastrophe isn't actually all that different to the environment that those creatures are adapted to. (That's the once-surprising part.)
Disagree? What adaptions do the plants and animals in those exclusion zones exhibit, and how is that analogous to what would be needed for the situation described in the article?
We are seeing some warmer climate sharks moving further north, but that isn’t helpful to the foundation of our food chain. We do have invasive species of mollusks which have set up camp here permanently, but they seem to suffer and decrease in number just as the native species do. There are invasive crabs, but again, they aren’t about to patch the holes in this system.
Also, it’s important to note that our winter temperatures still hit 6 or 7 degrees Celsius. There are no warm climate creatures I know of who can move in during a hot summer and stick around for winter. That means our previously stable, temperate environment doesn’t appear to be able to be likely to host many creatures in any migratory range I know of.
I’m not a marine biologist, perhaps you know better. This ocean is a passion of mine though, these matters take up a lot of my energy and mental real estate. I want to believe it will thrive very much, but signs really aren’t positive lately.
Apart from this die out, there are a multitude of other dire situations as well. We’ve extirpated several species, caused numerous salmon population extinctions and collapses, the near extinction of a resident killer whale pod, caused the collapse of multiple species of rockfish - the list goes on.
The thing we're concerned about is that humans are apex predators and depend on a functioning food chain to survive. Filter feeders eat algae. Unconstrained algal growth is toxic to fish (salmon) that we eat. Oyster and mussel farms were devastated and some won't see a rebound for at least 3 years if we don't have another event like this. Bears eat salmon, and when they can't find it, they seek other food sources like humans.
This story is a single datum. We've got freak cold snaps on the east coast and Texas. Flooding in Europe. The world is rapidly becoming more hostile to human life.
But yeah, a hot, acidic ocean will still support life -- maybe nothing we can eat for a few hundred generations, but life goes on with or without us. Hotter climes will spread tropical bugs and diseases; life goes on.
But we're still looking for intelligent life that's survived the "hold my beer" great filter. Haven't found such extraterrestrials; jury's still out on terrestrials.
In the past the environment has changed very rapidly at time. All life eventually dies. That which endures longer is that which adapts.
A warmer more carbon rich atmosphere has some benefits:
Expanded arable regions, fewer droughts, more rainfall, more carbon for plants to grown (try turning all your carbon in the atmosphere into rock and let me know how life fares then.)
Carbon based life needs CO2. They have done experiments where a forest is subjected to increased CO2 ppm by plumbing and nozzels. It grew faster and more robustly. Life also needs warmth. During the Eocene epoch some 50 milion years ago the Arctic was sub-tropical and teaming with life.
And I don't think the article is implying that the oceans will be barren forever, but that things are changing rapidly, unpredictably, and to an extreme degree that we have no precedent for.
"1 million mussels died in an area the size of a tennis court."
I think they usually measure small things in terms of mass. Here is a report just for Pugent Sound that suggests annualized reproduction of about 850,000 kg.
http://www.pacshell.org/carrying-capacity.asp
>1 million mussels died in an area the size of a tennis court.
So, it could be as small as 1000 tennis courts or less then 6.5 acres.
Most likely it was spread over a larger area and this was a spot with a lot of life that got hit hard, but it is a frame of reference
There's a chance we'll see increased competition among higher level organisms leading to the depletion of the same low level organisms in adjacent areas until those higher levels have a die off event too allowing them to recover.
In the inter tidal zone walking around it was a solid field of mussels before the heat wave. Maybe 10 underfoot, so say 20 per square foot or 180 per square meter.so 1,000,000,000 mussels would occupy 5,000,000 sq meters of intertidal coast. If the intertidal zone is 5m wide that is 1,000,000 meters of coast, or 1000km.
If all of the mussels and oysters died in 1000km of coastline I’d say it is a significant event.
Edit: a million mussels in the area the size of a tennis court? I was thinking of the clams I was walking on in June … definitely weren’t at that density
It means that climate change is affecting the food supply
Course they probably weren’t living that close to one another.
As for the percent of the total mussel population the article didn’t say.
If we give a rough estimate of 5 lbs. per animal (probably a lot less than that) that's around 60 billion animals killed last year so we can eat them.
It's estimated we can add another 40% to that as unwanted by-catch. So now we have 84 billion sea creatures killed each year on purpose.
If you're concerned about the environment you might consider not adding to this number.
https://www.yourfishguide.com/how-many-fish-do-we-eat-a-year...
https://oceana.org/sites/default/files/Bycatch_Report_FINAL....
Facts seem valuable when making individual decisions that affect the planet, especially when we wring our hands and wonder when someone else will do something to solve our environmental problems.
Some of the answers are right there in front of you every day.
No vegan even commented, I find vegan-bashing so much worse than vegan-evangelism. I'm seriously getting vegan fatigue fatigue.
It's a bit strange how often people will aggressively make either point 1 or 2, and then concede that the other is also true, but then decry the 3rd, which follows from 1 and 2, to be ridiculous pessimism.
Companies provide what people demand. If our demands change, then they will change. It's the only way.
To me the big difference is that seafood affects a natural ecosystem and species vs. farmed land animals.
However, they feed farmed fish wild fish apparently. Takes 5 lbs. of wild fish to grow 1 lb. of farmed fish.
Hmmm... doesn't sound sustainable.
https://www.livescience.com/5682-milestone-50-percent-fish-f...
The adult flies also have no mouth parts, and do not hang around people or spread diseases as a result.
Overall the article says it takes 20 million tons of wild fish to feed 51.7 million tons of farmed fish. Which is still a significant amount.
As others have mentioned it is unclear if a billion creatures is significant or not. But regardless this isn’t going to be a seasonal event.
The reason that we refer to this phenomenon as climate change now and not global warming is that average temperature doesn't accurately capture the ways that the climate will change as it warms. We will also experience more outlier events, more heat waves and bizarre cold snaps. This is an excellent example of the former; the shift of the Arctic air off of the polar regions south produces other anomalies. But the term "climate change" is intended to capture the increased frequencies of all these kinds of anomalous events, not just the steady increase in average temperature.