this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
836 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

11047 readers
3702 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
836
Explain that, science nerds! (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by Potatos_are_not_friends to c/[email protected]
162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skasi 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can't really believe that this wouldn't open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I'm certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to "ending all life". That's reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say it'd kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

For example ocean acidification is tempered by reacting with build ups of calcium which is the building blocks of many things in the ocean. Shelled critters and corals immediately come to mind as examples of directly impacted complex life.

As the corals die and can no longer form due to acidification that whole ecosystem collapses.

The stuff that eats the phytoplankton (sensitive to ocean acidification and heat) no longer can eat it due to it dying along with the other little micro organisms, also suffers from ecological collapse.

A big issue that impacts complex life is how quickly it can adapt to the changes in their ecosystem and if they can find new places to go or new things to eat.

For example E. Coli: it has quick generations so it can adapt really quickly. This experiment has been going since the late 80s and the E. Coli has gone through over 70,000 generations and they've seen a lot of changes. If you went back that many human generations it would take you back before modern homo sapiens.

[–] Skasi 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn't aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans

It absolutely is. There are microbes that thrive at the bottom of the ocean in the boiling acidic conditions of hydrothermal vents. There is absolutely no way anything humans can do at this point would kill ALL life on the planet. There will absolutely be some specialist microbe somewhere that looks at whatever we did to the planet and says 'yup, now is my time to shine!'.

[–] Skasi 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Just a heads up, you quoted me writing "kill all complex life (...) is exaggerating". Then as far as I understand you wrote "it absolutely is [an exaggeration]". Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I wasn't trying to prove what would survive, merely show how resilient life can be. If a simple microbe is guaranteed to survive in hell, something more complex able to behaviourally adapt/relocate is likely to as well. The greatest danger to complex life is having nothing to feed on.

Tropical fish might have to survive in the Arctic Ocean, or grasses in the northern prairies, insects of a zillion different types and sizes. Life, uh, finds a way.

We won't kill everything. No matter what we do. Life will continue and more of it than anyone thinks will, even of the plants and animals. It is humans and most of the large animals and intolerant plants that need fear the impending Climate catastrophe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There’s a chance that the aluminum residue from hundreds of annual rocket launches will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

*the aluminum is from all of our satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense.

[–] Skasi 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

What?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The aluminum and other metals in the space crafts bond with the ozone, which could fuck with our magnetosphere. It turns out it’s mostly from satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense though.

[–] Skasi 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And a messed up ozone layer means the atmosphere will... disappear?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If the ozone layer fills with metallic alloys, it fucks with the magnetosphere, potentially to the point that the magnetosphere no longer protects us from solar winds, and that would lose us the atmosphere.

It also might not be that serious, but there’s no way to know until there’s a problem. Companies are rapidly increasing the number of artificial satellites in our orbit without any consideration to the potential consequences though.

[–] Skasi 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?

To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere "very quickly" hadn't caused panic back then, it was only things like "stay inside so you don't get sunburns". Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

It’s different because these are now metallic compounds, which can become magnetically charged and may be able to affect the magnetosphere.

The magnetosphere is basically the ball of magnetic force around the earth that insulated us from solar winds.

Solar winds can destroy planetary atmospheres, when the planet isn’t otherwise protected.

The hole in the ozone layer was also a problem, but it’s more because the ozone layer protects us from a lot of ultraviolet light. The hole (which was not exactly a hole, but that works better for marketing) would have caused a bunch of cancer and exposed us to higher levels of toxic ozone on the ground, which are both big problems, but not for all life on earth

[–] MutilationWave 3 points 4 months ago

Nah it could leak out into space.