Climate change pushing marine life towards the poles, says study

[bananas]

Source: Guardian

Rising ocean temperatures are rearranging the biological make-up of our oceans, pushing species towards the poles by 7kms every year, as they chase the climates they can survive in, according to new research.

The study, conducted by a working group of scientists from 17 different institutions, gathered data from seven different countries and found the warming oceans are causing marine species to alter their breeding, feeding and migration patterns.

Surprisingly, land species are shifting at a rate of less than 1km a year in comparison, even though land surface temperatures are rising at a much faster rate than those in the ocean.

“In general, the air is warming faster than the ocean because the air has greater capacity to absorb temperature. So we expected to see more rapid response on land than in the ocean. But we sort of found the inverse,” said study researcher Dr Christopher Brown, post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/05/climate-change-pushing-marine-species-to-poles

[sakabatou]

1. Maybe one day, our oceans will be dead.

[AverageJoe90]

9. Nah, I doubt that.

I realize the oceans are in some trouble, but I'm not one to buy into "Canfield Oceans" or any of the other crazy apocalypse scenarios which have been proposed in recent years.....just saying.

[joshcryer]

16. The end-Permian extinction is linked to ocean acidification.

It's not "some trouble." It's "whole lotta fucking trouble."

We're talking a mass extinction of ocean life. Not "all" but lots.

(Contrary to popular belief the asteroid impact theory is not well established, and volcanoes and methane release are much more sound theories with actual evidence to back them up.)

[NickB79]

17. You gotta wonder, is a Canfield Ocean scenario really that crazy

Given that we have paleontological evidence that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED in Earth's past?

[AverageJoe90]

21. Yes, it certainly IS.....

And there is NO legitimate evidence that it did, for that matter.

Nick, I think you may have confused this scenario with something else: The Canfield Oceans scenario would have literally made pretty much ALL ocean life disappear, and would have made recovery practically impossible.

[AverageJoe90]

22. The only kink here is.....

The amount of methane that existed in those days......absolutely dwarfed what we have now. So I don't think the Permian will be quite repeating itself......though I suppose it wouldn't make any of us feel much better, though(me, neither).

[jwirr]

18. There are crazy apocalypse scenarios and then there are the results to real events such as climate

change. You find the first in many rw circles based on their interpretation of Revelations. The last comes from science from good sound research. I will believe the scientist long before I will the rw fundamentalists.

[AverageJoe90]

23. "The last comes from science from good sound research".

Unfortunately, this isn't true for the "Canfield Oceans" theory and there are indeed a lot of doomsday scenarios being pushed by a certain small, yet overrepresented clique, that do indeed sound like they could very well have been lifted from a typical '90s Fundie Apocalypse screed or survivalist fearmongering pamphlet, with the only real major difference being that it comes from a largely secular approach and that they do try to use science(and not always actual science), but only as a shield and a cover.

But when you really look at these things closely and carefully, you get to uncover these scenarios for what they are. Fearmongering, half-baked, and just plain bonkers. And when the actual deniers look at this stuff, they laugh their heads off at what useful idiots this group of people really is(trust me on this one).

It's only when REAL science is presented, that they then scurry away like roaches exposed to light.

[The Stranger]

19. I suppose being in denial would make me feel better too.

But I just can't seem to pull it off.

Fucking wish I could.

[AverageJoe90]

20. No denial here. Just reason, that's all. n/t

[hatrack]

25. Acidification alone would take care of that, even w/o all the bonus damage we're doing

That is, "dead" in the sense of "glutinous soup of bacterial mats, molds, and anaerobic process, lacking much of anything more complex than jellies".

[Dustlawyer]

2. Mammals can regulate their temperature somewhat, cold blooded fish cannot. These findings are

not surprising, just sad!

[dembotoz]

3. so natives who rely on fishing for food in hot climates could find themselves fucked?

fucked isn't a very nice word but I think is sets the mood for this better than other words.....

[hatrack]

4. That's the long and short of it . . .

That's also assuming that everything that swims hasn't been suffocated by dead zones, or choked on sweet, sweet crude oil, or filled its alimentary tract with little plastic pellets, or had its exoskeleton dissolved by steadily increasing seawater acidity by the time tropical fishing crews sail past You're Fucked Bay.

[AverageJoe90]

10. I very seriously doubt that......BUT....

Certainly isn't good news for sure, I'll give ya that.

[Gregorian]

5. "Even if we reduce emissions now then those effects won’t be seen for 20 years or so."

This is why we can't wait. The problem is still going to rage on even if we stop today.

I'm not following the comment regarding air having a greater capacity to absorb temperature than water. Water is more conductive to heat flow, and has a higher specific heat capacity than air. My brain is foggy, or I'm missing something. I think it's the convective properties of the air that we're forcing our emissions into is greater than the water.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. The earth will adapt.

We will not.

[NoOneMan]

7. Things will be rosey in a few million years

[AverageJoe90]

8. No, we will. You can definitely count on that.

Humanity will survive climate change(alone, at least). That's not up for debate, really. One question we can ask is, "what will happen to civilization?"; admittedly, global civilization may indeed be truly in trouble in the next few centuries if the worst-case scenarios play out, but even if they do, the fact is, AGW alone just wouldn't be enough to cause our extinction, even if some do believe otherwise.

[Alamuti Lotus]

11. Not entirely accurate

The earth will adapt--many of us will not. Some will adapt to the harsher conditions (or relocate to less harsh locales), and those will survive longer. I suppose on a long enough timeline, the survival rate of all drops to zero (to quote a great book), but on a more reasonable timeline, there is not necessarily cause for a completely bleak statement.

I would estimate that the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, WA, Brit Col/Alberta, Alaska) some parts of Alaska) provides the best habitable area for the next two generations. We will thrive, while the chumps stuck in the tropics swelter.

[Sunlei]

13. The higher ground only. archaeology records show some tsunamis on those coasts w/ 100+ft wave.

at least we don't have much chance of hurricanes in the gulf anymore

[Sunlei]

12. wonder if someday after a huge storm surge, we'll have the inland seas back for several centuries.

brackish swampy.

[blackspade]

14. This is a BAD sign.

We should be taking our cues from nature, not driving over her with a Hummer!

[iamthebandfanman]

15. clearly these fish have a hidden economic

agenda that they are trying to push onto the American people.

lol.

[AngryAmish]

24. It seems fish, at least, did NOT forget about Poland.