Hi, dovercliff. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/17u8bv6/-/kda81ir/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
**Please refer to the Climate Claims (https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims#wiki_climate_claims) section of the guide.**
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Ocean Acidification scares me. Did a paper on it in one of my Bio courses..
How the fuck are we LESS THAN 20 YEARS AWAY from the POINT OF NO RETURN, and we DONT HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL CHANGE?! Don't answer that, I know why.
There are people being born today, that won't even be adults by the time we have the final verdict..
Not a popularly liked opinion, but I truly feel that anybody still having more children right now is kind of selfish. Of course it’s mainly all the people that don’t believe in the impending doom coming. But if someone understands the severity of what’s coming and you’re still popping out kids left and right that’s messed up. Basically welcoming in a soul to be slowly tortured, or quickly, but a shit existence nonetheless. It is going to be a miserable reality in 25 years.
It's a fairly popular opinion here. And I find some support among younger people. But many of them will still have kids, because in the end we are mostly just puppets of our hormones and cultural imperatives.
The thing about a "point of no return" is that you can have lots of them, however when you pass the first one then subsequent ones only accelerate collapse.
If anything ever had a chance of putting me into "and find out" phase, it's this.
Well. We're going to have to do something. I mean I know everyone always talks about it but... dude we dead. Like actually right this moment now dead. Our brains just haven't caught on to the fact.
Yeah, like I knew we were fucked and I'd watch things get slowly worse but I didn't think I'd witness mass starvation and complete system/societal collapse in my lifetime.
I'm glad I never had children...
I hate to make you feel sad by that comment, I didn't really think about the people who have children when I said that. They still can still experience great happiness and love and can have a good life right now. This paper is more aggressive than most and not set in stone. It definitely isn't for sure going to go that fast and that bad.
I like to hold on to some hope. Human ingenuity, amazing technology, the desperation of billions of people as things get bad. I think about the Manhattan project, the coordination of massive amounts of brilliant people to create something unbelievable. Yes, that was for destruction but the same effort towards saving this planet could do wonders.
The next stage of civilization could/should be able to control our climate. While that seems so far away, it is within our grasp, it is within the possibility of science and our present reality.
Yes, I think things will get much worse before they might start to get better/move in the right direction but things can change incredibly quickly as especially recent human history shows. For any of that to happen, humans need to exist and the next generations need to be good.
I don't think humanity should go out with a whimper, stop breeding and cease to exist. We should fight for both the survival of the human race and life on this planet. Someone has to exist to do that. I see morons breeding like rabbits, good and smart people need to have children too, to slow our decent towards idiocracy.
Thinking of the children in Gaza or Darfur right now, horrors beyond imagine. The spectrum of human experience is vast. Not everyone, everywhere is going to experience starvation, genocide, etc. Your children could experience a good life and be glad they are alive. The world could be a better place because they exist, because they become good people.
The future is not written in stone. It is scary, yes but don't be sad you created life in an imperfect world. Life for most humans right now is better than it's ever been throughout all of our history. We've been through some dark ages, but i think that those are natural steps of evolution. What we will be experiencing is a powerful selective pressure, and we must evolve as we and all other species of life have done countless times. We survived asteroid impacts, mega volcanos, ice ages and we would not exist as we currently are if we hadn't had to fight through those times.
Also personally, there are parts of me that definitely regret not having children. I won't have family as I grow old, I will likely die alone. They provide powerful human connects I won't get to experience. The joys of watching them grow up and become people. The affect I could have on the future by raising children right, teaching them to be good people.
I have two questions:
1) The graph says that the point of no return is around mid-2040 but what is the likelihood of that happening well before, say, in the 2030s?
2) Once we reach the point of no return is there a period where things gradually but consistently get worse until maybe 5-10 years later mass starvation occurs? Or would we expect mass starvation to occur almost immediately after breaching the point of no return?
Re: #1
The graph assumes RCP 8.5. If we don't do RCP 8.5 (BAU) then it'll be a bit later. But not that much.
Seems unlikely to come earlier, but hey, you know what the phrase is around here...
Re: #2
If the graph is accurate it's worse. Ph < 7.95 leads to explosive dinoflagellite growth. Oxygen levels dropping faster than attributable to GG emissions alone is covered in the paper. Granted, I imagine that'll take a while, but starvation is one thing - insufficient oxygen is an unrecognizable world. What survives won't be anything we know, including us.
Things are already in the consistently getting worse phase.
Mass bleaching events in coral, entire penguin colonies starving to death, massive crab die off, wholesale decline of commercial fish populations, the shellfish boil during the PNW heat waves, worsening harmful algal blooms, anoxic events getting worse along coasts, the Arctic ocean was practically 10+°C all summer.
The feedback loops are already turning.
I mean don't we look scared at this point?
Don't answer that.
The good news is that past a certain CO2 concentration, we'll all be too stupid to be scared...
You can't BREATHE!!! Everything breaks down evenrually, how are you constantly going to replace all those filters? It's only a matter of time until we are extinct!
1. There is a likelihood of it occurring before 2040, but I don't have the resource or background knowledge to say anything meaningful beyond that. I do say there is a likelihood though due to the amount of warming (is that considered in these data?) of the oceans, glacial runoff which will further disrupt temp and salinity, and the NASSTA.
2. 1/3 of the planet relies on the ocean for regular sustenance. Combine that with massive crop failures worldwide (happening now, but will continue to get worse,) and suddenly A LOT of southeast Asia will not have reliable and regular food sources.
Projections for a while have been that the ocean will be depleted by 2050. I think it's a safe assumption to ramp that timeline up just like everything else.
Baking soda is like 7 ph. You can drink that fine. Cook it into baking powder is a bit better, CaOH calcium hydroxide is probably the best for marine life. >!Reef tanks rock!<
Aaaactually… by sheer coincidence I drank 1/3 cup of baking soda diluted in water yesterday and I got extremely sick as a result. Called poison hotline, was worried about kidney failure, but luckily the weird human body has a fail safe for this situation and that is evacuate all fluids IMMEDIATELY. Pretty wild. 10/10 do not recommend.
1/3 cup is a shit load, glad you are ok. I usually add 1/4-1/2 tsp to a single drink if I feel acidic symptoms or gas. Basically very cheap 'tums' medicine.
It’s gonna be like that Futurama episode when they drop a massive ice cube into the ocean every year to stop global warming but instead with a fuck ton of baking soda.
Elderly hydrologists working for the petrochemical industry have explained their calculations are there's not enough carbon on Earth to make it runaway like Venus. No need to worry about that. But this really does worry me.
I’ve always said, our first goal for cleaning the environment would be building massive Plants (not actual plants 🪴) that are near the ocean or on the Ocean. Think of a massive protein skimmer and refugium. The protein skimmer removes the proteins and trash. The refugium filters the waters. We always take a portion of the water and filter it through a RO type system that replenishes it with fresh minerals and salt.
Not only no meaningful change, it’s not even discussed openly outside of niche subs like this one or on fringe-y type media channels.
But the good news is nearly 200 people have seen/upvoted this post, so I’m sure word will get out
[The paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860950) included in the submission statement is not peer reviewed and may be misleading or wrong. [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/17u8bv6/comment/k943wkp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) asserts this is similar to the "90% of plankton are dead" widely debunked article from last year, which is covered in [this article](https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/).
The humble mod team doesn't have a good view on whether this particular data and paper is true, which can be said of a lot research shared in this sub. However ocean acidification is certainly occurring and worthy of discussion, even if this new work isn't peer reviewed. We are opting to allow this to stay up with that justification, and this disclaimer
Yeah, a lot of us here probably got solace in that whatever survives humanity's collapse and possible extinction and whatever violent tantrum we throw on the way out would be able to start things up again, perhaps with some surviving humans who eventually might manage to make a civilization again once the world stabilizes again (and be conveniently lacking most of the fossil fuels so as to mitigate what damage they can do next time around).
Ocean acidification is one of those "there may not even be a next time for the life that would otherwise survive humanity's near/extinction" things. That is the issue. It is easier to take peace in what is coming when you can imagine that whatever survives will diversify and make the world pretty again after we go.
How creditable is this paper? This reminds me of a similar post from about a year ago titled “our empty oceans” that discussed something similar and was partially discredited by a few marine biologists. It may have been the same paper.
There are potential issues with the paper, though any news source that would probably do far more to damage the accuracy via leaving words out than any issue with the paper itself.
However, the ocean ph IS going down, and there is a large amount of research spread out all over on what this can do to different species of ocean life, due to the fact that people like aquariums and have had to do research on stuff like this to optimize their ability to keep fish as pets or city museum/zoo exhibits and such.
Ocean acidification is a huge issue that even we here seem to feel uncomfortable to talk about relative to just the usual "oh, its fine, its only the entirety of human civilization and 99% of humans that will die, and next time we make a proper civilization we won't have most of those fossil fuels to mess up the planet with!"
Even if the whole toxic atmosphere stuff never actually happens, the loss of all life that requires the ocean to be above a particular ph is... bad news to put it lightly.
So, are the last humans going to be some Billionaires that are going to be sealed up in artificial environments? ( on Earth or in orbit)
I feel both sick & enraged...)
just like those dystopian future movies. as a kid i always imagined myself being one of those kids running around in the space ship or something , now i realize the plan for me was to be decaying in some landfill or something, how could i deem myself worthy to be among the space colonizer people , like i deserve life as a human right no matter my position in the hierarchy, we been bamboozled folks, it's the ultimate troll of the century, the supposed "future" did NOT have us common peeps in mind lol. I almost feel stupid for believing.
Take solace in the fact that once it all comes crashing down, the billionaire class is going to learn that their security teams have little need for the billionaires themselves
Human? Billionaires like Kim Jong Un , Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk *probably* are ( well, self-centered & egotistical humans). Mark Zuckerberg? Absolutely not!
The straight pH line bothers me. PH is logarithmic. This assumes the actual change is increasing logarithmically too. While possible, it seems unlikely to match.
I think these kinds of observations are the reason for the straight line: [https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidification-graph](https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/acidification/ocean-acidification-graph)
I have seen similar graphs, you can see the seasonal variations but the general trends turns out to be linear.
8.11 Hawaii annual average in October 1993 to 8.05 Hawaii Dec 2021. I can't find any more recent data but am quite curious to learn what the last couple years has done to that chart. Didn't look great, wouldn't be surprised to see 8.02 or 8.03. Given what we've seen in these two years from various other data sources around increases of atmospheric CO2, the decreased albedo due to the cleaner ship emissions, and the 2021-2022 Tonga volcano eruption, it would be surprising to me to see anything above 8.05, not that it can't be the reality of course. Just, would be an interesting move that would bring more questions if so. Personally I think 8.02 to 7.98 is a likely range for there to be very observable large events, such as all those crabs, dolphins, whales, fish, penguins, ....uh..yeah all that stuff. So I'm thinking we're there.
Most people don't think a 0.06 adjustment to anything is completely earth shattering, it's hard to comprehend the relationship between measurements if one doesn't really comprehend the system itself that the measurement is evaluating. In a large, dynamic system, predictability is based upon balance of all forces. As there arise imbalances in whatever form, the predictability correspondingly decreases.
This dance plays out until there has been significant enough change to stress the parameters that keep the system operating as it had been. Compromises are made, or forced.
Often, they're little things, like how much rain gets dumped somewhere, how much wind an area gets, building up to more major things like erratic temperature ranges for periods of time that confuse plants, etc. Eventually, you get a large enough change that nothing within the system can withstand the phase change. A critical mass is found and the system picks a direction and goes there, everything in it be damned. It becomes a new system in the process, with new parameters. Maybe some forms of life survive that transition, maybe some don't, maybe all don't, not really for us to know right now, but quite likely something that almost everyone alive today will find out if they're not scheduled to pass away for another 10 years.
>Most people don't think a 0.06 adjustment to anything is completely earth shattering
While not one of the favorite recurring remarks on this sub (relative to the clear winner of "faster than expected"), the noting of how humans at large often mess up the most due to failing to actually understand exponentials is nonetheless a general theme as well.
It's all about the scale. If the scale takes in the logarithmic growth (and pH does), the line will appear straight.
See the last pair of graphs here https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/latest/user-guide/when_to_use_a_logarithmic_axis.htm
The average person has almost no say in the matter. Even if said person does everything in their power to not contribute to the problem. The sickly wealthy are the ones who should feel global shame. They have forced the common people's participation in this monstrous system, draining the planet of resources without any care about entropy.
and these feces factories we call rich "people" produce pollution that thousands of normal people can't manage to, you're not the one who should feel ashamed for just existing. These abominations who have the most power should be ashamed of not being aborted as it would literally be a grace to humanity.
>capitalism has killed our ecosystem.
The Soviet Union was not capitalist but it was *industrial* and its environmental record was even worse than the West's. "Sustainable Development" is an oxymoron - you can only develop at the expense of the environment.
It is not about Soviet Union, if we view each country as a company literally everyone plays capitalism including China probably until war broke off which turned into which country stronger rather than which country gets more profit. So yes, the principal of capitalism where profit is first is truly the main culprit.
The Soviet Union is not the end all be all of everything that’s not capitalism. If what we need is to reduce development, commit to „degrowth“ as some people are calling it, I don’t think a capitalist system is going to be compatible with that. Capitalism requires continuous expansion and extraction to maintain itself. A command economy could coordinate to limit production and emissions as one of its goals.
Direct control over the means of production would give it the ability to choose the best practices instead of the bureaucratic process of regulating businesses to follow those processes which has failed to limit emissions completely. I think what we need is for food and product production to change from a global supply chain to more local production because that would reduce shipping emissions by so much. I’d be interested in what else you have to say but I don’t see how capitalism can sufficiently regulate business or take climate action because that would be directly opposed to its goals of maximizing profit, extraction, and exploitation. Destruction of crops is a perfect example of this, whether it’s potatoes, milk dumping, or oranges doused in gasoline, for profit farming turns abundance into a problem!
This is what scared me the most a long time ago. We are changing the pH of the oceans. Let that sink it. As an undergrad, a simple back of napkin calculation showed it happening. The rate is striking. How could do such a thing happen in merely two centuries?
When asking biologists about effects, they said some creatures won't be able to grow their calcium-carbonate dependent skeletons. Others warned of drastic changes to the atmosphere should the oceans significantly change. I looked up 'Canfield Ocean' and 'anoxic event' and was scared to death. Geologists told me not to worry, peak oil would do us in before we did any real damage which would then take a long time. Well, now here we are and the tipping point may be only 20 years away. Oh, this is only a hypothetical... so no politician would ever risk their career talking about a hypothetical. There are profits yet to be had!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean\_acidification
The answer is to become the politicians - join parties, pick candidates, and influence platforms. Voting is not enough anymore, we need to knock on doors, get on the phone, show up at debates and ask questions, drive people to the polls. We need to elect people that back the science.
pigs like to make their living conditions a pigsty. but this time it's the whole earth. and the pigs have a few billion dollars and human skins. it's an insult to real pigs actually because at least they contribute in some way to the nature.
Fucking bullshit. We've done this for decades and centuries. Voting is useless when all parties are capitalist and the system outlaws anti-capitalist parties. The only thing that can help us is a large scale, violent revolution.
Submission Statement: The image is from the report named "Climate regulating ocean plants and animals are being destroyed by toxic chemicals and plastics, accelerating our path towards ocean pH 7.95 in 25 years which will devastate humanity.", which can be viewed here: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3860950](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860950)
The image shows how phytoplankton bacteria can enter a phase of runoff growth due to dipping ocean pH levels. This is collapse-related because an environmental cataclysm of this scale is not compatible with human habitation of planet Earth.
I'm going to be cribbing a lot from the paper. Hope that's okay.
First, some of the text under that same graph:
> The Red Line maps data from peer-reviewed papers to provide a historical pH profile from the 1940’s to the present day (references [6] [8 ] [1] [8] [9][10][11][4][12][13][14]). IPCC data has then been applied to provide a projected pH profile. We have used the IPCC’s **Representative Control Pathway (RCP)8.5 or “business as usual” model** for the burning of fossil fuels). These data suggest that we will reach an ocean acidification pH tipping point [15][16], beyond which it will not be possible to recover most carbonate-based life forms by 2045. The IPCC states that at pH 7.98, half of all remaining carbonate-based marine life will be negatively impacted, a pH of 7.95 will have more serious consequences.
> The Blue Line maps a drop of around 40% of marine plankton from the 1950s to 2010 [6][17]. NASA reported a decline of 1% year on year from 1998 to 2012 [7]. The extrapolation forward from 2020 is based on the BIOACID report and the simple fact that calcium carbonate minerals will start to dissolve. Plankton and carbonate-based marine life cannot adapt to dissolving. The projected end point is more than 80% loss of all marine life and a tipping point at pH 7.95.
Gotta chuck this out there, too. The paper spends some time talking about the fact the forests are the planets lungs, and expressly calls it a myth. It asserts that had we not fucked the ocean, we might not even be experiencing climate change, because the ocean would still be able to "compensate" for us. But we *are* killing it, and with it, ourselves.
The paper basically says, unless we address the oceans *as well as the air* we're going to die anyway.
> While reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2045 will buy us some time, it is not going to prevent the loss of most marine life. Even if, by some miracle, the world achieved net zero by 2030 instead of 2045, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will still pass 500ppm and oceanic pH will still drop below pH 7.95 – a tipping point. The only upside here is that it might buy us time to wake up and address chemical and plastic pollution by giving us an extra 5 to 10 years to address the problem.
Finally, the very blunt conclusion:
> Humanity is balancing on the edge of extinction, and **we cannot see any possibility of human society surviving beyond the next 50 years** unless action is taken over the next 10 years to stop toxic chemical and plastic pollution. Invisible nature is what really matters: bacteria, fungi, and plankton are the life support system for the planet, and within the next 25 years they will be gone unless radical change takes place.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question; I'm kinda reeling over here from all this - is this report detailing exactly what is currently happening, and what is most likely to happen as time goes on? Or is this a "worst case scenario" type of prediction?
And actually, now that I'm retaining the ability to think at all, does it really matter either way since we're not going to make the enormous changes necessary to save even a few of us..?
Is all of this just straight up telling us that there is practically no hope, and we are all - every single one of us - going to be dead or dying by 2060ish? Somebody please tell me I'm misunderstanding somehow...
Well on the one hand we're doing better as a world than RCP8.5 suggests, as a 2.0 degree world is still possible. On the other hand there are significant issues with the IPCC report models that in general downplay the issue (by things like not including feedback loops).
It's hard to say what will happen, but it really doesn't look good. I do think we'll be seeing very large mass deaths that start climbing into hundreds of millions, if not from this than from the other effects of overconsumption like minerals running out, resource wars, and the tipping points that are part of climate change.
What a lot of people are relying on is technology that doesn't exist yet. Which, to be fair, is a real possibility. There's a chance AI or quantum computing or bioengineering or something exolodes within the next 20 years into something that radically changes the human experience, and various solutions or problems can come out of that, depending on how it plays out. Maybe an AI invents a way to cheaply clean the air, or maybe it invents a way to control everyone to force us to live in balance. The chance is there, and not insignificant.
I process this with the wisdom of stoicism: be aware of the things in your control and the things out of your control. I can personally try to prepare by saving money as things get more expensive, living in areas without water issues, and voting for people who I think prepare us better for the future. But, ultimately I'm not optimistic.
>What a lot of people are relying on is technology that doesn't exist yet. Which, to be fair, is a real possibility. There's a chance AI or quantum computing or bioengineering or something exolodes within the next 20 years into something that radically changes the human experience, and various solutions or problems can come out of that, depending on how it plays out. Maybe an AI invents a way to cheaply clean the air, or maybe it invents a way to control everyone to force us to live in balance. The chance is there, and not insignificant.
I'm not attacking you, I come in peace. *b u t*
It isn't a real possibility and the chance is 0. Cleaning the air is the perfect example.
​
Imagine you had a vial of, I don't know...soy sauce. You pour this soy sauce into a bathtub full of water. Now the water is a bit different, it's slightly off - color. You decide this was a mistake and resolve to clear the water of soy sauce. In a perfect world you could just tilt the vial back to its starting position and all the soy sauce would gather back up into it as if time was reversing.
This is not a perfect world. This is a world of entropy. This is a world where time has a single direction.
So how do you return the sauce to its rightful vessel? You don't, unless you're prepared for heavy sacrifice. It is a simple matter to take something of low entropy and make it high entropy. It's a simple matter to take a dense fluid and make it diffuse. It require no effort nor thought. You can do so by accident. The reverse is a leviathan task. The amount of energy and effort you would require to scour the water of its delicious, fermented soy-based contaminants is so great it feels plainly pointless. Might as well just draw new water and dump the old. That would be ideal anyway but we've no more water left in the reservoir. "At least we aren't dumping anymore soy sauce," we content ourselves. ...Right?
We have o n e atmosphere. We cannot dump this one and start anew. It is incomprehensibly massive and we have billions of barrels of oil being dumped into it per day. Most of it diffuses into the world's oceans. The remainder is dispersed amongst the very air we breath.
​
In order to accomplish this task, we require a billion personal cars sputtering through metropolises sinking the very ground they lie upon with their titanic weight. Millions of factories. Billions of men and women working around the clock, 24/7 for a couple hundred years. The amount of material we move per year outpaces that of the Earth's natural processes. We've enveloped 40% of the Earth's habitable land with farms. We've killed or eaten half of the fish in the oceans.
These impressive feats are sometimes likened to divinity. We're the effective gods of the world known as Earth. We are an incomprehensible, eldritch power beyond the realm of sanity to all of Earth's lower forms. We terraform the planet and shape it to our liking as a matter of daily existence.
These feats, doubtless titanic, amount analougsly to the act of pouring the little vial of soy sauce into a bathtub, just on a larger scale.
I want to be crystal clear to you:
what you suggest is *beyond* the realm of the gods. It is the equivalent of turning back time. It is pure delusion. Perhaps it is out of desperation that some researchers bother. Naivete besides. I sometimes think this may just as well be why others are so enamoured with the promise of AI and the so-called singularity. If creating our problems was an act close to god-like power, then perhaps we can solve them too, if we create the ultimate intelligence. There is an unspoken prophecy in the techno-optimist canon in which we seem destined to create God in the machine to save us from ourselves.
​
This is fiction.
The only salvation we have is to accept that we really fucked up and try to minimize the damage. How soon can we stop pouring the fucking sauce in the tub? We need to ask ourselves how we can salvage biodiversity. Can we build an ark of sorts? How do we save as many people as possible?
Techno-optimism is a desperate, infantile fantasy borne of our own self-destructive hubris. Real solutions are going to be ugly and humbling to humanity's self-image.
I am not a scientist, or remotely qualified. Let me lead with that.
It's talking a bit about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification and it seems to be a very real thing. The assertion is that if we don't address the oceans as a separate and unique problem with independent solutions (i.e. ignore them in favor of doing things that clean up the air) then we're screwed.
From that wikipedia page:
> Under a very high emission scenario (SSP5-8.5), model projections estimate that surface ocean pH could decrease by as much as 0.44 units by the end of this century, compared to the end of the 19th century.[86]: 608 This would mean a pH as low as about 7.7, and represents a further increase in H+ concentrations of two to four times beyond the increase to date.
This seems to more or less agree with the paper.
So what does screwed mean? I'm... not entirely sure. Wikipedia talks a lot about economic and first nations impacts, but not a lot about life "in general". This is the part where "i'm not an expert" comes into play, because i'm not.
The answer seems to be in the abstract of the paper itself:
> There is no doubt that tiny ocean planktonic plants and animals are key to regulating our climate, but this keystone of the planet’s largest ecosystem seems to be ignored as one of the tools to address climate change. Every second breath we take comes from marine photosynthesis, a process which also uses 60-90% of our carbon dioxide. Now that we have lost 50% of a key climate regulator, surely it is time to stop, take a fresh look at ocean chemistry and biodiversity and ask ourselves some fundamental questions: Why have we lost this level of marine life? Why is the decline continuing? What does this mean for our climate and humanity?
I mean I always read it as this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5TqD5xf0ic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5TqD5xf0ic)
Not that fast but basically. Lose all the plankton we are so fucked.
Maybe not Soylent green - but Seaweed green? Or [Solein](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming)?
FEED 12 BILLION PEOPLE while REPAIRING the oceans from just 2% of the world's oceans.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/01/sea-forest-better-name-seaweed-un-food-adviser
The seaweed powder can be a food supplement that goes in everything from dairy to bread.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000302
The dried seaweed protein yield per area (in the ocean) is 2.5 to 7.5 times higher than wheat or legumes (on land). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221823/
Also remember they grow shellfish like oysters, scallops, and muscles in baskets under the seaweed lines. Floating barges out in the deep ocean can pump nutrient rich water up from the deeps and grow even more food or biomass. (But this method is more expensive.)
https://theconversation.com/how-farming-giant-seaweed-can-feed-fish-and-fix-the-climate-81761
You mean you have seen the impact of these (tiny looking) changes in pH first hand? Do you have to keep the pH in a really narrow window to keep everything alive?
Yes, salinity, ph, and a lot of other factors are involved, levels of nitrates, phosphates, ammonia, calcium, magnesium, etc, etc.
Generally speaking, below 8.1 things start getting noticeably worse. You see, the harsher the water is, the more difficult it is for creatures whose survival depends heavily on carbonates to replenish/harden their shells.
See - https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification%27s+impact+on+oysters+and+other+shellfish#:~:text=For%20oysters%2C%20scallops%20and%20other,down%20and%20death%20rates%20rise.
We are already seeing the effects of prolonged levels below 8.1 which has been on a consistent downtrend below that since 1995.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338869/average-global-ocean-ph/
The thing about large complex systems is that there are always these key pillars that keep the whole thing glued together, and if you start messing with those pillars, the system starts trying to correct more and more until it just can't and all hell breaks loose.
You can see a different kind of example like this using the space shuttle Columbia disaster as a comparable situation. The hole caused by the foam might not have been a big deal in various locations but because of where it was on the wing leading edge, it allowed superheated plasma to pour into the wing, spreading the heat stress around until it started causing sensors to fail, and structural changes to the wing that started having greater aerodynamic effects.
Eventually, even with advanced and precise correction attempts by the computer, way faster than any human could do, the system lost enough of its pillar controls to catastrophically fail. No amount of compensation by the other systems was enough at that point, because the key pillar keeping the entire structure in adherence with parameters fit for human survival, were now gone.
Same same, just look around the earth and you can find many other examples of this.
The pH change seems numerically really small (I know it is logarithmic, but still...).
I hadn't realised the scales were so finely balanced - such profound repercussions from what looks like tiny changes in pH. Good simile with Colombia, thanks.
Yeah, you see this with terminal illness as well like cancer, or bad burns, viruses, etc. The human body can compensate for a long time, far beyond what you might think is possible, until it can't anymore, and then shuts off.
Our oceans are in this now. The overall system has had so many different wrenches thrown into it, that it's reaching a point where the levels of compromise required in various planetary subsystems, are becoming not enough to prevent larger systemic shifts, that are...incompatible with shareholder profits.
A lot of people call the lead author an alarmist doomsayer, so it is probably already the "fast than expected (tm)" scenario. Other sources expect 7.75 pH around year 2100.
Well he did do a "study" in 2022 and reported that plankton levels in the Atlantic had decreased 90% which was all over the news and this sub. But it was completely wrong.
While I am skeptical of the author too, the news stories actually inflated his claims. He did a survey in the EQUATORIAL Atlantic, not the entire Atlantic, and found much less plankton than he expected. In his paper he mentions that more research is needed to verify this claim and that the plankton could be migrating differently due to a variety of factors, and that could be why he didn’t find the expected amount of plankton in the equatorial Atlantic. Nowhere did he claim the entire Atlantic is devoid of plankton. I’ve done some research into the guy and his paper that have left me overall skeptical of the guy, but he did not claim what you think he claimed.
I wish this sub would stick to mainstream scientific predictions, which have been extremely accurate up until now. But the sub often focuses on fringe figures or organisations like the GOES foundation here who are making the most apocalyptic predictions, and have often be wrong a lot before. The mainstream predictions are bad enough but this sub really wants human extinction by next Tuesday.
I'm not a climate scientist so take what I say with a fistful of salt. But I've been reading a few papers today and it looks like the ocean Ph forecast above is right if we follow the RCP8.5 scenario which is often called the business as usual scenario but is essentially impossible to do even if we tried due to the size of known fossil fuel reserves.
I think the bigger sticking point is putting the ocean life tipping point at a Ph 7.95 I can't find much to back that up.
It’s a chilling thought to realize that those being born now have very little hope of reaching old age. And on the heels of that, whether things happen “sooner than expected” or somehow just beyond the conservative estimates— its impact on humanity is the same. The sixth mass extinction will be complete, with us all collectively joining the dinosaurs.
It’s so fucked up. I’d love to say, “Sorry, we tried!” but we know “We” didn’t. Not when it mattered, not while there was the possibility of profit.
This is why I don't understand how people can still morally justify having kids. I cant see a way that my standard of living stays consistent during my life time, even with the more conservative estimates on what climate change will do. Let alone a hypothetical child being born in the near future.
Doesn't pass the sniff test - CO2 concentrations have been higher than current levels in geologic history (c. 25mya) without the loss of all carbonate sea life.
Things are bad enough without this nonsense making everyone collapse aware sound like crazy people.
Does that matter if historical measurements actually say it is linearly decreasing? I'll also note that the change of pH needed to bring disaster is in the order of 0.1 units now. Continuous functions are the better approximated by line segments the smaller these changes are. Reduction in pH should be slowing down because each fixed increment takes about 10 times more H+ ions dissolved in the water, sure, but that sort of argument would better apply for change from 9 => 8, then from 8 => 7, which is 10 times more difficult. unfortunately going from just 8.05 to 7.95 or something like that is apparently already enough to bring a disaster.
IMPORTANT: This is a version of an [already-debunked article](https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/no-the-oceans-are-not-empty-of-plankton/) from last year that was thoroughly purged from this sub. Same authors. Same ulterior motives. Same bad science.
While it seems like it is in a peer-reviewed journal, the "Environmental Science Research Network" is an "open access repository for environmental science and other related areas of research including biology, chemistry, ecology, engineering, geology, and sustainability."
In other words, it's not a legit journal but it can be used to make things look legit.
Did you read the update at the top of the link you posted? Howard Dryden was misquoted for internet clicks. Of course everyone knows that 90% of plankton are not dead, but he's not just making stuff up. Going through proper channels or not, the work is based on observation. I bet we will start seeing credible research soon enough on this issue.
Thats not the only problem.
Making a chart that predicts sealife collapse within a timeframe is very suspect. Theres no hard line based on Ph that plankton dies out, its based on the species. Some species may actually do better with lower Ph.
You're correct that there is a dearth of research about the effects of ocean Ph on plankton. More basic research is needed. But you can't just plop your boat in the ocean somewhere and make some measurements, and then make a projection like that.
If it gets peer reviewed or otherwise is confirmed by further research, then i'd give it more credibility.
No my guy. He’s saying CARBONATE based life. Carbonate is carbon dioxide dissolved in water at basic pHs and associated with sodium, making it insoluble. Most species with hard shells use it for their structure. When the pH of the water decreases below a certain level (logarithmic scale so the change happens very VERY fast as you approach that value) the carbonate turns into CO2 again and the creature literally dissolves. Anything based on carbonate for structure will have a VERY similar pH value for this to occur.
I posted papers about this years ago. i dont get why people ignore this one so much. also 600ppm CO2 makes people stupider . even without climate change there are serious problems from CO2 pollution.
I guess it's the typical "I can't see it, it doesn't exist" mentality.
Forests are green and convert CO2 -> we need to protect them.
But we can't see marine life. The ocean could be completely dead and barely anyone would visually notice.
I've personally been banging this drum for 15 years. Once ehux cant form because of acidity, the base of both the marine food chain and the atmospheric oxygen chain is gone. The oceans are going to Auschwitz the whole earth. Very little will survive, including plantlife. It might not take til 2090. Could be 2050. Could be sooner. But this is what's coming.
"Nice" to see this idea gaining traction. Sucks that its happening. Have an exit plan, and equip for it in case you need to take the moon door. Hope whatever comes next is more optimized than we are for cohabitation. I hope AGI happens in the next 5 years and skynets us all and gives the biosphere a slim chance of avoiding the fate we're writing for it.
That's the scariest thing. Once profits become affected, there's a good chance they might even reverse this, and continue to progress towards making life eternal and miserable.
welp that answered the question and the answer is no we did not passed the great filter. we are all gonna die but at least life go on only slightly get kicked back somewhere from a few million years to 100 million years of evolution because we caused the next extinction event that might be equivalent to the great dying. at this point my trust in humanity not ending itself is lower than the possibility of the neighbor cat can understand human language. all i can do is wish for the next sapient species is founding out our existent and never go down our past.
Hi, BattleGrown. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/17u8bv6/-/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Just to be clear, the linked report is not a peer-reviewed work -- it is posted on SSRN which is an open-access preprint publication wherein anyone can publish whatever they want without peer-review. This doesn't invalidate anything but is important to understand the distinction between science and someone's observations/interpretations.
The plot shown titles the primary y-axis "Marine life percentage survival %" but is actually plotting an estimate misunderstood from the cited studies. They are showing a 1% decrease of total living phytoplankton, but the study (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268) estimates an annual decline of **1% of the global median**. This is a vastly different quantity!
They state "The projected end point is more than 80% loss of all marine life" which is not supported by any of their citations!
I won't even bother going past this point in the paper.
It is extremely important in the age of disinformation that people think critically and examine information rather than just believing what they see in the nicely packaged image or soundbite. It's especially important for those aware of the serious and likely apocalyptic problems we face as cohabitants of Earth.
So there's no confusion, ocean acidification is definitely one of the direst climate catastrophe issues we face. I just make this plea in the hope that more people will apply critical thinking to information they come across, especially information that confirms already held beliefs.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
To be fair, I'm not sure that paper is taken all that seriously. Here's a brief comment from Eliot Jacobson and a note in the replies about dubious commercial interest behind the paper.
[https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1448720561572499468](https://twitter.com/eliotjacobson/status/1448720561572499468)
All I see there is Jacobson saying “not” with no explanation. I like the guy’s statistics but just denying something without explanation does not a valid argument make.
Ocean acidification is a geological marker for mass extinction. It’s one of the chemical signatures we look for in rock layers to identify periods of mass death.
We will just find a substitute for the ocean... ... oh and fisheries... oh and oxygen itself... oh and food and stuff...
quote: an economist probably....
I've already been starved and succumbed to heat exhaustion and now they want to poison me to boot, by 2090, of course. One theory of mankind's survival says that we were forced in small bands to the ocean shores and that is how we survived climate change in the past. Too bad, that may not be possible this time around.
You can search from past threads in collapse, this graph and it's publication have been discredited.
Sure, ocean acidification is a problem but this graph is more speculation than model based projections.
Howard Dryden is very active on LinkedIn. Go see what he thinks about microplastics. https://www.linkedin.com/in/goesfoundation?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
The following submission statement was provided by /u/BattleGrown:
---
Submission Statement: The image is from the report named "Climate regulating ocean plants and animals are being destroyed by toxic chemicals and plastics, accelerating our path towards ocean pH 7.95 in 25 years which will devastate humanity.", which can be viewed here: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3860950](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860950)
The image shows how phytoplankton bacteria can enter a phase of runoff growth due to dipping ocean pH levels. This is collapse-related because an environmental cataclysm of this scale is not compatible with human habitation of planet Earth.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/17u8bv6/drop_in_ocean_ph_might_kill_everyone_in_the_2090s/k91xgv5/
211 Comments
Fickle_Meet@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
IWantToGiverupper@reddit
beedlejooce@reddit
Ih2mpwtd@reddit
shwhjw@reddit
SeveralDrunkRaccoons@reddit
HandjobOfVecna@reddit
SeveralDrunkRaccoons@reddit
boomaDooma@reddit
ObssesesWithSquares@reddit
voice-of-reason_@reddit
CoyotesOnTheWing@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
CoyotesOnTheWing@reddit
AwaitingBabyO@reddit
CoyotesOnTheWing@reddit
AhmadHaider@reddit
Deguilded@reddit
AhmadHaider@reddit
DjangoBojangles@reddit
Classic-Progress-397@reddit
Timebomb90@reddit
RollinThundaga@reddit
Tyranid_Swarmlord@reddit
Then-Hippo-6767@reddit
malevolentslime@reddit
Tliish@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
ObssesesWithSquares@reddit
nomeans@reddit
RichardsLeftNipple@reddit
blackcatwizard@reddit
No-Kangaroo-669@reddit
IWantToGiverupper@reddit
ribbitthefrogg@reddit
billcube@reddit
Mistborn_First_Era@reddit
possblywithdynamite@reddit
Mistborn_First_Era@reddit
ORANGE_J_SIMPSON@reddit
Mistborn_First_Era@reddit
Solitude_Intensifies@reddit
No_Perspective_4641@reddit
baycenters@reddit
Riordjj@reddit
Accurate-Ad-8988@reddit
PandaBoyWonder@reddit
kakapo88@reddit
marbotty@reddit
kakapo88@reddit
michael-streeter@reddit
sjgokou@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
Straight-Razor666@reddit
marbotty@reddit
nommabelle@reddit
effortDee@reddit
ConfusedMaverick@reddit
Fox_Kurama@reddit
Accurate-Ad-8988@reddit
Fox_Kurama@reddit
Grognard68@reddit
ribbitthefrogg@reddit
cantthinkofgoodname@reddit
HandjobOfVecna@reddit
Grognard68@reddit
BradBeingProSocial@reddit
Fox_Kurama@reddit
SRod1706@reddit
BattleGrown@reddit (OP)
Mission-Notice7820@reddit
Fox_Kurama@reddit
SRod1706@reddit
audioen@reddit
yomajkel@reddit
skjellyfetti@reddit
LightingTechAlex@reddit
ribbitthefrogg@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
finishedarticle@reddit
darkarchana@reddit
Didjsjhe@reddit
DestruXion1@reddit
ItyBityGreenieWeenie@reddit
hobbitlover@reddit
progfrog@reddit
ribbitthefrogg@reddit
dharma_barrel@reddit
ObssesesWithSquares@reddit
Pristine_Juice@reddit
Toni253@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
BattleGrown@reddit (OP)
ribbitthefrogg@reddit
Deguilded@reddit
Desperate-Strategy10@reddit
Stop_Sign@reddit
Karahi00@reddit
WithaK19@reddit
Stop_Sign@reddit
Deguilded@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
eclipsenow@reddit
Mission-Notice7820@reddit
ConfusedMaverick@reddit
Mission-Notice7820@reddit
ConfusedMaverick@reddit
Mission-Notice7820@reddit
Tliish@reddit
ukluxx@reddit
sandiegokevin@reddit
Graymouzer@reddit
liminus81@reddit
BattleGrown@reddit (OP)
BenUFOs_Mum@reddit
leopoldrocks@reddit
Mazzaroth@reddit
marbotty@reddit
BenUFOs_Mum@reddit
SkippingSusan@reddit
BenUFOs_Mum@reddit
spk2629@reddit
etheran123@reddit
Armouredmonk989@reddit
liminus81@reddit
Le_Gitzen@reddit
TheCambrianImplosion@reddit
otterbotherer@reddit
-Planet-@reddit
Mistborn_First_Era@reddit
audioen@reddit
Wevvyj1111@reddit
DurtyGenes@reddit
BattleGrown@reddit (OP)
Frog_and_Toad@reddit
BaccaPME@reddit
Frog_and_Toad@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Future-Cancel-8015@reddit
MakeTotalDestr0i@reddit
CodaTrashHusky@reddit
MakeTotalDestr0i@reddit
MakeTotalDestr0i@reddit
CaptqinDave@reddit
MakeTotalDestr0i@reddit
CaptqinDave@reddit
ConfusedMaverick@reddit
Pristine_Juice@reddit
CaptqinDave@reddit
v6_6v@reddit
cra3ig@reddit
DestruXion1@reddit
Armouredmonk989@reddit
ActRepresentative248@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
ObssesesWithSquares@reddit
AnotherFuckingSheep@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
TheQuestionableDuck@reddit
fuggingShitDamn@reddit
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
coyoteka@reddit
hopefulnotoptimistic@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
gatohaus@reddit
sornk@reddit
Deguilded@reddit
Taqueria_Style@reddit
bigtim3727@reddit
cursedonidemon@reddit
OddLiving8822@reddit
alienssuck@reddit
SimulatedFriend@reddit
LatzeH@reddit
culezz@reddit
Nebih@reddit
Odd_Awareness1444@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
BadAsBroccoli@reddit
Pitiful-Let9270@reddit
ApocalypsePenis@reddit
Ruby2312@reddit
Pineappl3z@reddit
The_Doct0r_@reddit
billcube@reddit
balerionmeraxes77@reddit
BattleGrown@reddit (OP)
lev400@reddit
VictorianDelorean@reddit
exterminateThis@reddit
goldenbeans@reddit
oluies@reddit
oluies@reddit
Deskman77@reddit
Darkhorseman81@reddit
Negative_Divide@reddit
WorldsLargestAmoeba@reddit
jedrider@reddit
Warstorm1993@reddit
Chunky_cold_mandala@reddit
Stoned_Lumber@reddit
voice-of-reason_@reddit
billcube@reddit
Tsquare1984@reddit
anaaaaak@reddit
CitizenLuke117@reddit
robertDouglass@reddit
StatementBot@reddit