• Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Basically it’s due to the heat, acidification of the ocean, and the massive drop in oxygen production as the ocean acidifies.

    Most of the oxygen we breathe is produced by microorganisms in the ocean and as the ocean gets more acidic (from absorbing CO2 from the air) and hotter (from greenhouse effects) it makes it harder for those little fellas to survive. And when they die their impact on our breathable air goes away. And if course the stuff that’s eats those organisms no longer have food and due off.

    That’s not even mentioning just the heating from greenhouse effects making unlivable temperature conditions (humidity + heat = unable to cool down and overheat) more likely to occur.

    All life wouldn’t perish per se but the current complex animals we have (and us humans) would be greatly impacted to say the least.

    • Skasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days 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.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          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?

          • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days 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.

      • idiomaddict@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

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

          What?

          • idiomaddict@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

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

              • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  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.

                  • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day 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