Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
The Ocean's Biological Deserts Are Expanding
sciencenow.sciencemag.org — Researchers are reporting that the ocean's biological deserts have been expanding, and they are growing much faster than global warming models predict. All of the biological deserts had grown, except the South Indian Ocean's. The total expansion was 6.6 million sq. kilometers or 15%, and it happened as the shallow waters of the gyres were warming
iching- 738 diggs
- digg it
- webaddict, on 01/26/2008, -6/+22What a great submission. Thank for the good summary. It's absolutely stunning how much is going on underwater that we would never think to pay attention to. 15%... that's an incredibly large amount of the ocean underwater world. I'd like to believe we only damage the part of the world we touch every day but unfortunately, every part of the planet we seem to have devastating effects on.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/26/2008, -6/+5What would be the measure used to determine the amount of impact of humanity on the ocean floor?
- melonhedd, on 01/27/2008, -7/+3What makes you think we did it?
- Kamill85, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Err, because everything was fine for the past millions of years and in the last 60 years everything started dying out there?
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1That means everything started dying before humans ever existed. Millions of years ago.
Dinosaurs and all, being extinct.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1That means everything started dying before humans ever existed. Millions of years ago.
- carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1what makes you think we did not? water is very good at absorbing co2 and as it does so it becomes more acidic and less suitable to life.
- Kamill85, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Err, because everything was fine for the past millions of years and in the last 60 years everything started dying out there?
- ST0N3, on 01/26/2008, -13/+18i would be 10x more interested if it was about biological _desserts_.
- betasp, on 01/26/2008, -23/+9..."and they are growing much faster than global warming models predict."
Goes to show how wrong "the experts" predications are... whether good or bad.- Llan, on 01/26/2008, -4/+14Or how watered down by the constant drizzle of the "non-experts"
- tetsuwan, on 01/26/2008, -4/+14Predicting ocean life isn't really at the core of GW models, so that the situation is actually worse than what probably amounts to a rough estimate shouldn't make anyone feel comfortable about the situation.
- ReinMasamuri, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2Or more likely, they see something bad progressing faster than expected, and automatically connect it to climate change.
Correlation /= Causation.- Sigma0, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Do you have a better theory? They seem quite intricately linked to me.
- ReinMasamuri, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Hrm... well let's see
Additional radiation from the suns recent increase in energy output (kind of like using too much fertilizer burns the plants), over fishing in those particular areas, newly upset geological instability. All these things have been happening, and they have a correlation to the biological deserts. It just doesn't mean that there is causation here.
- ReinMasamuri, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Hrm... well let's see
- Sigma0, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Do you have a better theory? They seem quite intricately linked to me.
- ReinMasamuri, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2Or more likely, they see something bad progressing faster than expected, and automatically connect it to climate change.
- tmbrwolf19, on 01/26/2008, -4/+7i fail to even conceive how that undermines the predictions of experts on this topic. the global warming group plays it conservative on most calculations for change. these models are by no means simplistic. even the most basic computer modeling programs take several months to run a full scenario, and thats through some of the most powerful supercomputers on the planet. only the most recent calculation's have started to factor in the biosphere and its impacts. if anything, this shows deniers who claim nothing is happening, are completely off base, because clearly something is going down.
- poiuytrewq44, on 01/26/2008, -15/+6WE DIDN'T LISTEN!
- Dumbledorito, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3Not to people like you, no.
- insanebrain, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4as usual . .
- Bisclavret, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4I don't care what they say, dugg for Southpark.
- Enasni1212, on 01/26/2008, -6/+8Oops, we broke it.
- DeFex, on 01/26/2008, -12/+3they could make a very simple wave powered machine to pump nutrients from the bottom of the sea. then they could expand the productivity of these areas. and the chlorophyll of the plant life would help suck up some co2
- ByteGuerilla, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4When I seize power, you will join Captain Birdseye as my dual Ministers of Fish That Are Still Alive For Now.
- HiKevinRose, on 01/26/2008, -15/+4I'm sorry, deserts in the ocean? Weird...
- d0onut, on 01/26/2008, -1/+7A desert is any place with less than 8 inches of rainfall in a year.
- insanebrain, on 01/26/2008, -6/+2Weird ??? you mean you're dumb . . .
- c1nn46, on 01/26/2008, -1/+8no, he just meant that he was sorry he couldn't be as smart, gifted, and as much of an ***** as you are
- RobotCitizen, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Antarctica has deserts too. See D0onut's comment.
- serverdown, on 01/26/2008, -7/+5it's all because of the different types of trash and plastics that congregate in those areas
- Jamihabs, on 01/26/2008, -23/+9I smell yet another environmental scam.
- Dumbledorito, on 01/26/2008, -3/+13You know, for all the cries people have of "oh, they're just getting money to say that! Be an environmental stooge and get money," nobody seems to realize that there's MORE money in saying everything's all right for business.
Become a climate scientist for Exxon or a health researcher for Philip-Morris if you really want to rake in the dough.- jabrthel, on 01/26/2008, -8/+5Or become a scientist for the gov't and not only will you make 100's of thousands of dollars per year, but you never have to worry about losing your job... that one seems to be the more logical choice to me. Live a wealthy life with no risk as opposed to a highly risky life with the potential to live absurdly wealthy. That's why people blame ecologists of doing it for the money.
- geminitojanus, on 01/26/2008, -3/+6Government scientists get reallocated every time Congress sneezes. Environmental scientists especially so.
Environmental scientists at the huge oil companies and mineral moving companies get paid hundreds of thousands a year, as they're the ones who actually have to convince the government that what they're doing is ecologically sound (which is as much about science as congress is about "helping the little people").- jabrthel, on 01/26/2008, -4/+2You've never met a tenured professor at a public university then.
- xedd, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2"You've never met a tenured professor at a public university then."
The vast majority of tenured professors (at public universities or not) are NOT scientists. - jabrthel, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Upon second thought, all of this is idiotic... because neither one of us are providing any real statistics on the matter...
- Math, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4You conspiracy people need to think about your conspiracies, especially when a little common sense would stop this kind of stuff being posted. You're proposing a conspiracy that involves thousands of scientist, the government agencies that employs them, the and government officials that fund them (including the President, who has strong ties to the oil industry).
Almost all scientists are highly ethical people, who did not enter their field for the renumeration (and in a lot of cases they would be silly to have, because it's not that great compared to a lot of other fields that require a similar level of skill and intellect).
I've worked in a goverment science agency a while ago, and can say with all certainty, that most of the scientists there were not paid what they were worth, and with their qualifications could get paid signifcantly more in the private industry. Job security doesn't mean that much when the pay difference is that great. All of them stayed on working for the government for the love of what they were doing, and the relative freedom they had in their research.- jabrthel, on 01/28/2008, -3/+1I'm not proposing a conspiracy, but rather am just explaining why people don't trust another set of people on certain things. I never said gov't scientists were biased, just that they had as cushy a job as private industry scientists do. You emotional people should stop being so defensive and actually read what people write before throwing accusations around. Besides, I love how as a supposed scientist, you are supplying me with an anecdote and expect me to take it as fact. How very unscientific of you. As I said below, all of this discussion is pointless since no one is supplying any real statistics. God, you must have sucked at your job... because you didn't even bother to check all of my comments before reaching a conclusion.
- jaxcs, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Why the sudden cold feet? Of course you are proposing a conspiracy, you're proposing that govt scientists all hold their position for the money, the same as private sector scientists. You suggest this and now huff about how no statistical data is offered for either side. It's your position, didn't you think before you posted? It is the responsibility of the person offering a position to make a clear claim and to provide factual data to be examined. Worse, you don't even supply anecdotal information, you make the claim out of whole cloth. It seems to me that you are the one who is overly emotional.
- geminitojanus, on 01/26/2008, -3/+6Government scientists get reallocated every time Congress sneezes. Environmental scientists especially so.
- jaxcs, on 01/26/2008, -4/+1@jabrthel
As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon".
- jabrthel, on 01/26/2008, -8/+5Or become a scientist for the gov't and not only will you make 100's of thousands of dollars per year, but you never have to worry about losing your job... that one seems to be the more logical choice to me. Live a wealthy life with no risk as opposed to a highly risky life with the potential to live absurdly wealthy. That's why people blame ecologists of doing it for the money.
- tetsuwan, on 01/26/2008, -2/+5Yeah, I'm surprised it's not marked as inaccurrate yet. /sarcasm
- Dumbledorito, on 01/26/2008, -3/+13You know, for all the cries people have of "oh, they're just getting money to say that! Be an environmental stooge and get money," nobody seems to realize that there's MORE money in saying everything's all right for business.
- casual7y, on 01/26/2008, -6/+9are hackers behind this too?
- ByteGuerilla, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4No corner of the world is safe from Eric Baumann.
- jabrthel, on 01/26/2008, -9/+19The satellite that monitors this was launched in 1997... it hardly seems like a big enough data set to start drawing conclusions from. It's the same as running one experiment to test the rest mass of an electron and then declaring you know what it is.
- krnldmp, on 01/26/2008, -1/+5Shucky dang, Zeek, I just don't see the similarity.
- transcendz, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Sometimes, even a few data is enough to have a clue.
- jabrthel, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2But the margin of error from collecting just one data point is huge, and hence can't be trusted to draw any conclusions from. Unless, of course you buy into the precautionary theory... but discussing the merits of that would have to entail a much deeper conversation.
- darienphoenix, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Oh great, another pseudo intellectual.
I suppose you think the IPCC's findings were based on insufficient data points?- jabrthel, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Hey, buddy, I'm just talking about this particular set of data. I didn't mention anything at all about my views on global warming... but continue being a jackass and start accusing people of things. Idiots like you are what give the environmental movement a bad name.
- darienphoenix, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Right, you were referring to precautionary theory for... what reason?
If you're not a nutcase denier, what did you mention it for? - jabrthel, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1If your using the precautionary theory to justify something... then your conceding that there isn't enough evidence to prove your assertion.
- darienphoenix, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Oh great, another pseudo intellectual.
- jabrthel, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2But the margin of error from collecting just one data point is huge, and hence can't be trusted to draw any conclusions from. Unless, of course you buy into the precautionary theory... but discussing the merits of that would have to entail a much deeper conversation.
- iticu, on 01/26/2008, -6/+5One day those dolphins are gunna get so pissed off with us, that'll be the day we discovered they invented lasers.
You heard it here first, folks! - Jamihabs, on 01/26/2008, -13/+8They have no idea what natural variations exist and so have no evidence that anything abnormal is happening. And yet, the suggestion is that this is further proof of global warming. This is not science.
- krnldmp, on 01/26/2008, -3/+10That's funny. I was sure I read that modelling has predicted this ocean desert expansion and that it has actually been measured to be expanding faster than the prediction.
- jabrthel, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3That's funny, you didn't address his point at all... just changed the subject in an arrogant fashion.
- Cyberen, on 01/26/2008, -3/+6And I'm sure your full name is Jamihabs, PhD?
- thescimitar, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3While Jamihabs often trolls with inflammatory statements, he's absolutely right on this account, excepting the "this is not science part." Ten years is too short a period to make an accurate estimation of global trends. However, the collection and analysis of data is ENTIRELY scientific. Take care not to confuse your propaganda with actual, reasonable criticism.
- transcendz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Who decide what's an accurate estimation ? Do you think we have time to wait a hundred years just to start analyzing the results... ?
- krnldmp, on 01/26/2008, -3/+10That's funny. I was sure I read that modelling has predicted this ocean desert expansion and that it has actually been measured to be expanding faster than the prediction.
- Richandler, on 01/26/2008, -9/+3So a 10-year old satellite is telling us that we are killing sea life?
- Rapter09, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Come, now. It's not like this thing is the gunked up dirty old "only for a dollar a day!" computer sitting under your grandmother's table.
- unclemeat, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Obviously they send these satellites up in to space without anticipating that they'll need upgrades to handle the more advanced graphics of biological deserts 10 years in the future. If it can do the job well when they sent it up there, it wont be able to do this job well 10 years later because of strong, unknown forces that will make the computers give up and stop reporting accurately. Maybe they're rusting away with all that oxygen up in space?
- RationalXubrnce, on 01/26/2008, -2/+7 What about industrial poisoning? If there is now so much mercury in fish that people are concerned to eat them wouldn't it make sense that the mercury among other pollutants could be having a negative affect across the oceanic food chain? Does anyone even know, or are the scientists content with blaming everything on warming trends and leaving it at that?
- Jamihabs, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Apparently, ... yes.
- m00dc0ntr0l, on 01/27/2008, -5/+3Well, on the positive side, whatever creature(s) find(s) a way of living in this new environment will be enormously happy to find that there's no one there to challenge them.
- Seismiq, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4Indeed, the only think that might limit their happiness slightly would be that they won't have anything to eat, either.
- wootmacs, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4Huh? I love it! Everybody wants us to worry about every fudging thing.....
- 5xSTUN, on 01/27/2008, -4/+12I find it shocking that nearly the entire ocean is under water.
- djclay, on 01/27/2008, -6/+1That really made me lol! Such a refreshing change from all the bashing of the bashers of global warming. Whether it exists or not, none of us (I'm 18, as a reference point) are gonna live long enough to be truly affected by this, so just lighten up and live life.
Meh, digg me down or up or sideways I don't care. When you digg down I think more people actually read the comment, 'cause they are curious.- unorginalityftw, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5That's ignorant and selfish. You're throwing your burdens onto your descendants. If I was one of them, I'd kick over your gravestone.
- djclay, on 01/27/2008, -4/+0Of course. Like I said, life is too short to worry about every little (or big) thing. And I'm gay. So I won't have children. Thank god.
Continue the trend of bashing the bashers why don't you :)
- djclay, on 01/27/2008, -4/+0Of course. Like I said, life is too short to worry about every little (or big) thing. And I'm gay. So I won't have children. Thank god.
- blast_flame, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1While I do not believe that global warming is as bad as all the alarmists are saying it is, if it is then we will live long enough to see it. Immortality is just around the corner after all.
- joshtj, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2There were no buttons for sideways, so down you go.
- transcendz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Do you recall the orchestra on the Titanic ? They continued playing while the ship was sinking. Doing our best to give back to our children the nature we had and saw when we were young is a far better way to feel happy, and profitable for everyone IMHO.
- unorginalityftw, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5That's ignorant and selfish. You're throwing your burdens onto your descendants. If I was one of them, I'd kick over your gravestone.
- djclay, on 01/27/2008, -6/+1That really made me lol! Such a refreshing change from all the bashing of the bashers of global warming. Whether it exists or not, none of us (I'm 18, as a reference point) are gonna live long enough to be truly affected by this, so just lighten up and live life.
- yllabianbitpipe, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1One more reason to be depressed and eat more chocolate.
- Villers, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3I don't understand why so many people still deny global warming . How can you not see what is going on around you. ***** scientific data. This year it was 65deg here in the northeast in January... ever since i was a kid it has never been anywhere close to to that temp in Jan. Its usually about 15-20 deg if not lower.
You think that the earth just naturally has dead spots. I just don't get why some people are still so Anti-earth. There's something like 6.6 billion people on earth all polluters ... no that wont take its toll on the earth, not at all. (sarcasm)
Humans are destroying the earth. Don't believe me? look at Google Earth. notice the deserts, they are huge! they the scars of our planet. Now fly over your favorite city notice how it looks like a cancer spreading across the earth. where has all of our forests gone? Oh they're lining the floors of our houses. Well ***** my ozone. hope you anti-earth ppl die in a pandemic. dicks!
wouldn't hurt nothin' to plant a damn tree every now and then. wouldn't hurt a thing.- betasp, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Very few actually deny it, many question human's ability to impact it.
- carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2"wouldn't hurt nothin' to plant a damn tree every now and then. wouldn't hurt a thing."
at least until a stronger than historically normal natural disaster pushes the tree over onto your house. :P
and yes, the planet does have dead spots. There are areas that are simply inhospitable to life, they're in the centers of the oceanic currents (like this article talks about) as well as the center of the antarctic and the middle of the Sahara. The point is that those areas are getting bigger and the life supporting areas are getting worse at being life supporting.
- defwheezer, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2The increasing size of ocean dead zones trends with rising sea water temps. "A variety of oceanographic observations and modeling is consistent", and the models are UNDER predicting the magnitude of change. It doesn't really matter in the big picture whats modulating ocean temp more ('natural' causes or us burning fossil fuels), the fact is the temps are going up and the oceans are dying. We DO impact the world- lets just do it somewhat responsibly, and with regard for our environment for ***** sake.
- ZeroFive1, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1It must be terrorists!
- RichStradler, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Oh no,,, another pretty multicolor map and scientific study that proves global warming and the total destruction of the earth by humans!!!
...I'm already drive a Prius and gave up bottled water for Gods sake! .... what else do you want from us?!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is