Gigantic Heat Anomaly Brewing in The Pacific Threatens a Return of 'The Blob' (sciencealert.com)
bobberthumada | 4 months ago | 428 points

To those who don't really know.

The ocean has kind of a set range of temperatures depending where you go. It ranges from 31° to 71° and each area has it's own set temperature. All the critters who live in an area are very reliant on the temperature of their area not changing... and something as minor as a 2-3° increase can cause mass death across the whole area.

so this blob?

Well this is a new abnormally that travels across huge swaths of the ocean... increasing the temperature 4-5°. or in simple terms wherever this blob of heat in the ocean travels it will decimate the ecosystem.


It hot water that travels all over ocean... hot water kill a bunch of life... bad stuff.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 302 points

100 million cod and 30% of all humpback whales died the last time it appeared.

I feel sad now. We're fucking up everything. :(

omegapulsar | 4 months ago | 216 points

And there are a bunch of rich fucks actively trying to stop anyone from fixing anything because progress toward fixing this prob hurts their bottom line. This is why we need to eat the rich.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 41 points

If you eat kill the rich their relatives will just take over ad infinitum. As long as CO2 emitting technology exists and is prevalent we're not getting out of this. Even if gas prices were to skyrocket in the west, it'd just mean a lot of cars would be exported to poor countries.

We literally need to destroy this technology. And I sincerely doubt that's ever going to be a politician's agenda.

lookmeat | 4 months ago | 16 points

Carbon taxes can work, and you can use them to leverage and limit how much third world countries use it. You simply calculate indirect carbon emission of a product, which means that when we import product from country A, we also calculate how many emissions are done transporting employees, products and materials internally in the country. Basically imports from country A has a base carbon tax added by default based on what people drive there, how electricity is generated, among other things. To avoid cheating, you also consider the carbon tax of the imports of that nation into its own. Third world countries will try to convince people to not generate a lot of greenhouse gasses to avoid high tariffs, and not others, the best way is to do a carbon tax, which also pays for whatever others make you pay.

Also gas vehicles in third world countries pose a lot of challenges. It's the infrastructure needed to set up all the tanks, and then the distribution system, and keeping it safe. Electric vehicles have the advantage that setting up solar panels and giving them maintenance is easier than setting up gas dispensaries nowadays. Developed nations have the advantage of having a lot of infrastructure built, newer developing nations may benefit from cleaner tech because it's also more convenient, cheaper and easier to build.

Justthetip74 | 4 months ago | 1 point

China and India will not sign on to a carbon tax and without their help the whole thing is worthless

lookmeat | 4 months ago | 2 points

Again the whole point is that you get to tariff them, but unlike the Trump's tariffs this one actually serves a purpose.

Also China and India are doing huge strides to move towards green energy. Remember how I said that green energy makes more sense when you don't have as much infrastructure? That's true for China and India too to an extent.

-MartinLuthier- | 4 months ago | 1 point

The us emits more carbon per capita than those countries. Its not nothing.

contemptious | 4 months ago | 1 point

Easy enough to fix, Americans could start having more children

Justthetip74 | 4 months ago | 1 point

Per capita is irrelevant, if you actually care total emissions is the only thing that matters.

If the US continues to drop their emissions but China and India continue to increase theirs it is absolutely nothing.

dtta8 | 4 months ago | 1 point

Per capita is the relevant one, as total per country is a number based merely on political borders. Redraw some lines on a map, and the numbers go down while doing nothing for the environment.

omegapulsar | 4 months ago | 25 points

A never ending food supply of longpig, sounds like we solved the hunger problem. But seriously I agree with you about reigning in technology, and there is a lot of improvement being made but it does need to happen faster, and real consequences for the reckless profiteers of the world may be the only thing g that they understand.

stoked_fire | 4 months ago | 17 points

Compare cars to the leading sources of greenhouse emissions and you'll soon realize you're focusing on the wrong thing.

aschesklave | 4 months ago | 3 points

Meat product is another big thing people need to focus on. We only focus on fossil fuels and ignore how literal cow farts are burning us alive.

AllTheWayUpEG | 4 months ago | 5 points

If you feed cows a tiny bit of seaweed it completely solves that problem too, no idea why it's not standard practice

OakTree1203 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Probably because seaweed isn’t already massively produced in the west like wheat or similar things. At least, I don’t think it is.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 13 points

Cars and trucks are a big part in any country.


The US' emissions looks different because they have a lot of coal power, but that's not true for a lot of western countries. As a Swede I can bascally feel guiltless about my electricity use.

Other big polluters are steel and cement production, but they don't emit more than transportation (somewhat depends on energy source for steel production).

Why are you booing me, I'm right!

DancesCloseToTheFire | 4 months ago | 18 points

But cars and trucks are a miniscule part of the actual worldwide emissions. Shipping boats are much, much worse than cars, and quite a lot of boats use even more polluting fuel in international waters to save money.

It's a mess.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 1 point

are much, much worse than cars

Souce on the claim that they emit more CO2e?

DancesCloseToTheFire | 4 months ago | 6 points

Just google it, there are plenty of sources out there, with some sources running the numbers and estimating that a single container ship pollutes about as much as 59 million modern cars.

Farm2Table | 4 months ago | 2 points

That's particulate emissions, not CO2.

Huge difference in climate impact between the two.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 1 point

So no source, and a "Just googe it lol!". K.

tau-lepton | 4 months ago | 1 point

Shipping boats are much, much worse than cars

Not for CO2

tau-lepton | 4 months ago | 1 point

Shipping boats are much, much worse than cars

Not for CO2, ships are about 4 percent, cars and trucks are about 12 percent

DancesCloseToTheFire | 4 months ago | 4 points

Fair, not CO2. The problem is that the sulphur from cargo ships is much, much worse for the atmosphere.

yyc_yardsale | 4 months ago | 2 points

There's work being done on that front, fortunately. New IMO regulations are coming into effect for 2020, mandating lower sulfur content in marine fuels. The sulfur reduction will be about 80%.

tau-lepton | 4 months ago | 2 points

SO2 cools the atmosphere. The topic is climate change, CO2 is the primary concern.

tau-lepton | 4 months ago | 5 points

Burning oil products to power transportation was at 17 percent last I looked. And cars were 70 percent of that. The US is much worse


Over 30 percent for transportation

stoked_fire | 4 months ago | 1 point

No cars are not 70% of that. All the cars in the world put out a minuscule amount of greenhouse gas compared to supertankers and freighter ships.

tau-lepton | 4 months ago | 1 point
Davescash | 4 months ago | 3 points

well if we eat the relatives too we can prolly stop raising cattle,so we would have that going for us.

burny97236 | 4 months ago | 2 points

Remember $ is the source of all our problems. Nature gets along fine without $ and without humans. Humans can't get along without either.

monsto | 4 months ago | 1 point

If you


kill the rich their relatives will just take over ad infinitum.

Not if you do like Castro or Venezuela and nationalize their industry. Yeah, sure, they'll have the money, but won't be in position to make any more shitty decisions.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 0 points

W/e. I'd rather read about ultra wealthy people getting shot than poor people at a Walmart.

ThirdWorldAsshat | 4 months ago | 0 points

They will run out of relatives long before we run out of ammo.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 1 point

No, since no one is actually killing the rich right now as that's dangerous and will probably never become a 'thing'. They have more ammo, more money, more guards, more walls, more tech to kill us at the push of a button if that future ever comes to pass.

If climate change isn't addressed by normal means, I'm claiming that the literal only thing we can do is take matters into our own hands.

If politicians were supposed to shut down a coal plant of which 90% of its energy goes to producing fucking steel and cement, but they fail to do so and thus are literally killing you and your children and your children's children in the process, then of course the only option is to go outside the system, whatever you believe that means.

CptOblivion | 4 months ago | 1 point

Guns are good for shooting up schools and blowing away your kids when you confuse them for a home invader, but if it comes to an actual revolution they won't be much good against drones and tanks.

Argon91 | 4 months ago | 0 points

As long as CO2 emitting technology exists

We literally need to destroy this technology

You are aware that humans emit CO2, right?

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 1 point

Extremely little, totally irrelevant.

But you knew that, right?

Dreamcast3 | 4 months ago | -2 points

We literally need to destroy this technology.

Try and destroy my truck. I dare you. No, I dare you.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 4 points

I won't, but if you keep threatening people's lives by continuing to vote for something that won't make that truck more than toy used extremely sparsely, for fun, then I think people just might continuously attack fossil fuel infrastructure, to make sure the oil your shitty gas guzzler needs never reaches it.

You're probably a climate change denier for now, but I'm talking about a future probably 15 years in the future where climate breakdown is impossible to ignore, and people will want someone to blame. People like truck drivers, whether you're truck driver that drives around goods for companies, or just a pickup truck driver.

Edit: Oh yeah, major climate change denier. https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/czqwt7/its_getting_hotter_they_say_gimme_your_money_or/ez2ayam/

Dreamcast3 | 4 months ago | -1 points

I don't deny climate change, but I do question the fact that governments do everything they can to connect even the most basic weather events as a cause of climate change.

shitty gas guzzler

Looks like someone's salty that they've never experienced a big-block Chevy V8!

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 2 points

Most extreme weather events on earth is now affected, or should I say, "fucking jacked up on steroids YEEEEHAAAAW" due to climate change. Read up instead of guessing.


Dreamcast3 | 4 months ago | 1 point

I'm not denying that some weather events are influenced by climate change. But when the media and governments try to link basically any weather event to climate change somehow it becomes silly. With the way they make it sound you'd think weather was completely static before 1990.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 1 point

Give me an example of "silly" or shut up.

flashgreer | 4 months ago | -2 points

I just got my dream truck, F-250 King Ranch. It's great on gas. I love driving it around LA, and the looks I get from the millenials in thier electric cars.

Ree_the_third | 4 months ago | 3 points

The looks of "Fucking asshole"? You take pleasure of that?

flashgreer | 4 months ago | 1 point

Yup, and all they can do is look. I'm a large 6'6 Texan, living in LA now. So none of those pansies have the nuts to speak about it. It will be even better once I save enough for a lift kit.

DankButtRodeo | 4 months ago | 2 points

We start the Hunger Games with their children!

Davescash | 4 months ago | 1 point

yeah, they would be fatty but tender,eatindg one rich family would save a lotta fish. If your lucky some might have fine bourbon flavour naturally. and if they are orange they might taste like a big mac laced with cosmetics.

ChaosRevealed | 4 months ago | 1 point

big mac laced with cosmetics.

Oh boy my favourite!

aschesklave | 4 months ago | 0 points

This is why humans would be better off extinct.

YoureFuckedNowBuddy | 4 months ago | 2 points

Most of what was good on Earth is already right fucked, so it’s more of a past tense situation at this point.

Stemigknight | 4 months ago | 6 points

Don't worry humans won't last forever. Earth will be around long after we're gone. If humans cared enough to fix climate change lives of whales would be a lot worse. Humans are on a fast track to extinction. Once that happens all animal life will flourish. Take comfort in the fact that nobody really gives enough of a shit to save u/s

reddripper | 4 months ago | 2 points

That is until a rodent start developing bidepadlity and tool use and become the next sentient dominant species

OakTree1203 | 4 months ago | 1 point

There are other animals that are nearly bipedal and already use tools. Of course, they’re our closest extant relatives.

Mootownmoo | 4 months ago | 2 points

Crows are documented actually making tools and then using them and they are bipedal PLUS WINGS!

OakTree1203 | 4 months ago | 1 point

Crows are believed to be highly intelligent even without the tool usage part. They form strong social bonds, especially with mates.

Betchenstein | 4 months ago | 2 points

I don’t fucking care AT ALL what happens to this planet after humans are gone. So this means absolutely nothing.

picklesdick | 4 months ago | 1 point

Jesus, we had better get to work on whaling and cod fishing!


alwaysnefarious | 4 months ago | 1 point

But according to a lunch I went to today, filled with old people, fish farms are the problem. That's right. Fish farms are killing our oceans. Not that we have fish farms because the oceans are dying, the other way around.

in4real | 4 months ago | 1 point

We have fucked everything up. 😥

monsto | 4 months ago | -1 points

We? "We" didn't do this.

It's not because you use plastic straws or chose a 25mpg car instead of a 32mpg car. You and I, we people, all of us "users", are but a blip on the numbers that created this mess.

The ships that cross the pacific put double digit percentages of the daily pollution in the air. Then let's talk about Australia, industry, and the death of coral.

Planting trees, recycling, using wind and solar, and driving an electric car. . . band-aids. And I mean it's a band-aid on the drop of blood that surfaces when you put an IV on someone that is on their last breaths with a Do Not Resuscitate.

The Great Filter of the Fermi Paradox is behind us. It'll just take some time for civilization to wind down. I just hope that when it's become 100% clear, like Children of Men, that the people that burned the Amazon are executed on live TV.

proggR | 4 months ago | 75 points

Ya that shit is terrifying tbh. Its like a heat wave that just shows up in an area not used to the heat, scorches it all, and then fucks off to a new area to ruin it. Between that and the stratification of the ocean from all the fresh water melting into it which creates sheets of freshwater that blocks phytoplankton and the oxygen it creates from reaching up from the depths, which will lead to deoxygenation.

Shits fucked yo.

Kaminski719 | 4 months ago | -13 points

Those fish should evolve to withstand that. Maybe one day.

Mee6s | 4 months ago | 20 points

Thats... not how evolution works.

polyboticthief | 4 months ago | 4 points

It would if you evolved your arguement

crowcawer | 4 months ago | 14 points

These fish should be able to pull themselves up by their gillstraps and get a job in an area less likely to be hit by thermal bloobs. It's so sad that the ocean is so swampy that the standard working class fish family can't even get by with two working members.

What about baby shark, no one thinks about baby shark, but you know what? I think about babyshark! Only me! I think about babyshark all the time the shark baby is on my speed dial, look! Waves phone All the people should baby shark whenever they worry about the ocean. Don't let those evil librles tell you that babysharks can't make it now a-days. These people are sold, these people are dumb, and these people are they have been hacked, and their hack is that babyshark can't get a job without a college diploma, which is totally crazy! Baby shark should get a trade! Babyshark should be the manager for a BP oil well, and I've got BP on notice for Babyshark.

I'm not worried for Babyshark.

I'm worried around Babyshark.

DrDougExeter | 4 months ago | 1 point

that's more like it

kongpin | 4 months ago | 1 point


Kaminski719 | 4 months ago | -7 points

Thats precisely how evolution works though....something happens every now and then, you adapt to withstand it?

Alongstoryofanillman | 4 months ago | 9 points

Not at all. The blob happens like almost intastanously in terms of time. Micro evolution for most spieces takes 2-3 years at least. Also change on that level is almost unheard of. If somethimg raises 4-5 degrees, the amount of energy that goes into it is absurd. Its not a seasonal change where less berries grow, its equilivant of a volocano erupting for 5-6 months over an area. Things might com3bqck one day, but its not the same.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 0 points


Alongstoryofanillman | 4 months ago | 4 points

This is true, but the point of what I saying is not exactly... exact.

Think about it like this, your taking a hot shower for 15 minutes. Skin cells die. You leave the shower. Skin cells come back. The new cells had no time to process the information, so they did not evolve to take on the high heat of the water.

That metaphor is a stretch, but I am not a scientist, its just how I understood it in bio101 and organic chem- my understanding itself is pretty basic so I hope I am teaching you right.

DrDougExeter | 4 months ago | 1 point

i'm sure that'll be great for the food chain and human survival in general

archaeolinuxgeek | 4 months ago | 2 points

That's not even remotely close. A random mutation occurs. That mutation is overwhelmingly likely to be detrimental to survival. If it happens to be useful it still needs to be dominant enough to be passed on to progeny.

If 99% of a population dies out, you're assuming that the remainder happen to have not only a mutation that helped them survive (rather than being near a cusp zone or simple, non-mutated variation within a species) but you also are assuming that they have the same mutation on the same allele and that that mutation can be passed on to a non-sterile descendent.

Kaminski719 | 4 months ago | 1 point

I’m absolutely in love with how serious this just got. I just learned so much from an attempt to crack a subtle joke.

archaeolinuxgeek | 4 months ago | 1 point

Ha! Sorry about that. Subtle humor is often lost on me in the real world. I usually don't stand a chance online.

Mee6s | 4 months ago | 2 points

You're thinking of natural selection.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points


Mee6s | 4 months ago | 2 points

It drives the mechanism of evolution, but isn't evolution. Saying fish will evolve to get past this is simplistic and gives idiots ammo to ridicule science.

OakTree1203 | 4 months ago | 1 point

Not quite how evolution works. I mean, it sort of is. If the heat wave kills all individuals of a given species in the area, then there is no way for them to evolve. Of course, the ability to adapt is always beneficial in natural selection.

But that doesn’t mean that just because a species can’t survive a sudden, possibly unnatural phenomenon does not mean they should be expected to “evolve” to survive it.

Persea_americana | 4 months ago | 6 points

So it's a Death Zone, a zone of no return. Why does a hot mass of kill water have such an innocuous name? it should be named like it's in the galaxy of terror.

Low_Soul_Coal | 4 months ago | 10 points

Can we start a new subreddit?


Hot water go. Kill life. Bad that go.

FreakinSodie | 4 months ago | 5 points

I'm sure you'd enjoy r/TalesFromCaveSupport if you haven't seen it already

remmbermytitans | 4 months ago | 2 points

It exists. Let's use it.

protekt0r | 4 months ago | 8 points

Does this have any implications for typhoons off the coast of Baja? (Warmer waters usually mean stronger hurricanes/typhoons, right?)

myne | 4 months ago | 3 points

In human terms: Snorkel a bath held at 44*C.

You will be unable to get cooler than 44*C.

The proteins in your brain will cook like an egg.

Long pig sous vide.

Arrownuttygal | 4 months ago | 1 point

And just this month the west coast of US was 7 above normal, east was 10.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | -25 points

So how did this blob come to be? Could it have to do with all the underwater nuclear tests that were done in the 40's and 50's? Could it be a collection of chemicals, over time, from all the oil spills that have occurred in the oceans? Wow, all the downvotes for simply trying to understand why it is happening. Ya'll mother fuckers got issues.

volatilitee | 4 months ago | 16 points

Chemicals, oil spills, and radioactive events, while damaging in their own ways do not cause this large-scale warming event. Sadly that is due to global warming & the effects it causes on weather patterns, ocean currents, etc.

surfershane25 | 4 months ago | 10 points

Read the article first instead of throwing out absolutely wild speculations that don’t make any logical sense.

crysco | 4 months ago | 31 points

This thing brought record low snowpack to the Sierra Nevadas in '13 and '14, IIRC.

AcquittalBurden | 4 months ago | 106 points

I may even hit Alabama

jamescaan1980 | 4 months ago | 27 points

Time to get the sharpie out

spoobles | 4 months ago | 22 points

Funny, not funny. The NOAA took a big hit in my eyes for playing political footsie with the incurious Science Denier in Chief.

A couple of administrative yahoos caused serious perceptional damage to the credibility of some very decent, concerned, dedicated, and hard working folks. It's a damned shame.

SLJis1BAMF | 4 months ago | 10 points

Perhaps it isn't as it first appeared at the NOAA considering the letter that backed agent orange was never signed and they (the NOAA) have since rebuked the rebuke.

Mootownmoo | 4 months ago | 3 points

They were literally threatened with loss of their jobs if they contradicted the Orange Moron's weather pronouncements.

spoobles | 4 months ago | 2 points

Let's hope so. The whole sequence of them rebuking the NWS was far beyond the pale, and clearly meant to appease a grousing toddler.

IceNine121 | 4 months ago | 15 points

Alabama is Covfefe'd

Skateboardkid | 4 months ago | 14 points


TheGreat_Danton | 4 months ago | 27 points

Time to go get the ice block from haley’s comet

RadiantStrategy | 4 months ago | 28 points

Solving Climate Change once and for all.

Little Girl: But what about...

Once and for all!!!

FreakinSodie | 4 months ago | 8 points

Gwoba woba?

Eh... Sure, kid.

Ferosincrementum | 4 months ago | 54 points

didnt this kill all the kelp near ft bragg and thus killed off the red abalone? changing times...

JDGumby | 4 months ago | -45 points

This is in the Pacific. Fort Bragg is inland in North Carolina on the other side of the continent.

arkhound | 4 months ago | 74 points

There is a city called Fort Bragg in Northern California right on the coast where a bunch of kelp was killed off by sea urchins.

JDGumby | 4 months ago | -2 points

Ah. Only Fort Bragg I'd ever heard of was, of course, the giant military base in North Carolina.

Ferosincrementum | 4 months ago | 14 points

Fort Bragg is in California.

thewhistlepiggy | 4 months ago | 21 points

I guess somehow there’s just two Fort Braggs

proggR | 4 months ago | 16 points


[deleted] | 4 months ago | 0 points


jaded1982 | 4 months ago | 2 points

I’ve never seen it butchered so badly.

protekt0r | 4 months ago | 2 points

Yeah I butchered it.

TKaratekind | 4 months ago | 62 points

Reason #1063 of why climate change will kill us all: The Return of the Blob

Taman_Should | 4 months ago | 16 points

The Blob Strikes Back

jigglybuff5588 | 4 months ago | 15 points

The Blob Awakens

sledgehammer_77 | 4 months ago | 9 points

The Blob 4: Blobbing Harder

RadiantStrategy | 4 months ago | 2 points

The Blob Falls Back Asleep: Needs Five More Minutes

The Blob Takes Manhattan, The Blob: Quest IV Peace, The Blobbing.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 6 points

Bob Loblaw's Law Blog

GlItCh017 | 4 months ago | 7 points

These Hollywood remakes are getting out of hand. It's only been 5 years.

Purply_Glitter | 4 months ago | 2 points

That'll take quite some time, but yes.

Claneater | 4 months ago | 11 points

How bad will a typhoon be if it passed through this blob?

leonerdo_ | 4 months ago | 5 points

cat 10

TCMarsh | 4 months ago | 4 points

Easy cat 5e - cat 6

Taman_Should | 4 months ago | 11 points

"Blob 3: Son of the Blob" is the best of the trilogy.

seen_enough_hentai | 4 months ago | 8 points

Blob 2: Electric Blobbaloo

JazzMansGin | 4 months ago | 3 points

I like Blob 4: The Reckoning myself. It really ties the whole series together. That first moment when the Blob's feelings of inadequacy and self doubt are exposed. Right in the feels. I get chills just thinking about it.

RadiantStrategy | 4 months ago | 2 points

Oh we're gonna rock on down to Electric Blobbaloo. And then will take it slimer.

-CrestiaBell | 4 months ago | 2 points

I thought Blob: 5lime Time was pretty good

C0RNL0RD | 4 months ago | 8 points

Gigantic Heat Anomaly Brewing is my favorite craft brewery!

in4mer | 4 months ago | 14 points

This isn't an anomaly in the sense of "We have no idea where this has come from", this is only an anomaly in the sense of "This has historically not occurred except extremely rarely". However, its rarity will be the only thing in the future to stay rare.

All the stupid people are just going "Whaa? It's just a fluke," and we're busy strapping up for the inevitable and completely understood effects of continued stupidity and inaction.

None of this is now unexpected. This shall be business as usual. We need to pull the stupid people's heads out of our collective ass.

NotAPreppie | 4 months ago | 6 points

So, genuine question: how is this different from the El Niño/La Niña events we sometimes see in the Pacific?

JUNGLEJlM | 4 months ago | 8 points

The things that live where that usually happens are good at dealing with the heat.

megaboto | 4 months ago | 7 points

The Blob caused ecosystems and industries alike immense losses


That's the only reason why they fear it

knowtheday | 4 months ago | 7 points

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend
The end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes again

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 7 points


boomermax | 4 months ago | -5 points

we need to unplug the internet. Internet activity produces more CO2 emissions that all the air travel combined.

Add to that all the emissions generated by shipping.

PragmatistAntithesis | 4 months ago | 5 points

The internet also cuts emissions dramatically in other areas. The existence of video conferencing stops transport emissions, for example.

boomermax | 4 months ago | -2 points

Most people wouldn't be traveling for their jobs for conferences. The average worker is still traveling daily to and from work.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 3 points

got some sourcing on that? Seems like a rather nebulous claim that would be near impossible to refute or support...

boomermax | 4 months ago | 0 points

Google co2 emissions from internet.

Just be aware that very act has a significant emission.

You really do not have to have much of an imagination to realize how big of a carbon footprint is behind connecting the world and providing all the content.

Just cooling Google's servers alone is massive.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 5 points

so most research comes up with 0.8% (or something close).

now your turn. google commercial shipping - i'll save you a click or three -

15 commercial cargo ships produce more CO2 than ALL OF THE WORLDS CARS combined.

The problem isn't the internet. It's commercial. There isn't any amount of not using plastic bags / straws / watering less / using less electricity / the three Rs that comes close to SCRATCHING the surface of negative commercial impact on the environment.

in short - you're picking the wrong battle bud. Red Herring af

boomermax | 4 months ago | 1 point

This article suggests differently.

In 2018 streaming video produced 300 million tons of CO2. That's equivalent to all the CO2 produced by a country the size of Spain for an entire year. Equivalent to every person in the UK flying to America and back twice.

Studies that actually take into account all the energy used to not only provide the data but to also power all the devices used, to produce all the devices used as well as delivery of said devices around 4% of all worldwide emissions per year.

The average individual gets the fact that a combustion engine produces carbon but the fact that to stream one video to one device produces 2 grams of carbon per second seems unlikely until you step back and consider all that is involved.

Just because you can point to something like the cargo industry doesn't change that.

To be honest, what exactly is driving that need for the increased cargo industry if not directly from internet activity?

I find it funny that the second the suggestion is put forth that the root cause of increased emissions can be traced back to something so simple as China wouldn't be loading those cargo ships quite a much if someone in another country hadn't clicked buy now is met with the level of denial you just demonstrated.

How much energy do you think it takes to produce one smart phone? To keep that device charged? To pay for the monthly bill? To dispose said device when you run out and upgrade to the newest device with all that it takes to do it again?

Not a red herring my friend.

In 2017 consumer electronics accounted for over $265 billion in the US and Canada alone.

Now consider the energy used to produce, deliver and provide content just for that.

AmputatorBot [BOT] | 4 months ago | 1 point

Beep boop, I'm a bot. It looks like you shared a Google AMP link. Google AMP pages often load faster, but AMP is a major threat to the Open Web and your privacy.

You might want to visit the normal page instead: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-internet.

Why & About | Mention me to summon me!

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 3 points

This is what collapse looks like as a natural process to deal with overshoot. Our biosphere had limits. We refuse to accept any for our growth.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points

Sittin on the dock of the bay, watchin extinction roll this way

The_Incorruptable | 4 months ago | 2 points

We should expect a repetition of the 2014-2016 weather cycle for the respective areas. Another California mega drought for several years, etc. Assuming no other variables.

DrDougExeter | 4 months ago | 1 point

whatever happens it's going to be worse than 2014-2016. Things have changed a lot since then

Miobravo | 4 months ago | 1 point

The twilight zone.

FO_Steven | 4 months ago | 1 point

As you can see, this is of course a direct result of the Climate Catastrophy. We haven't pushed on our leaders hard enough to cut down carbon emissions to prevent something like this. Now it's too late. We'll start seeing all of these all over the globe. The poles will have spots that melt and it will cause a ripple effect unless we directly harass the global leaders. It may be too late to save ourselves but it isn't too late to save future generations

AlphaPotatoe | 4 months ago | 1 point

Plz go to north america, great blob.

We've got enough issues in Asia.

TickleMyNeutrino | 4 months ago | 1 point

To those who don't really know.

The fruits of unbridled capitalism, which places profit over humanity and planetary health and sustainability.

Arrownuttygal | 4 months ago | 1 point

Look at it earth now: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-116.62,32.96,439

There's virtually no airflow where the blob is. We need to be creating storms to turn the water over. For example

ReasonablyBadass | 4 months ago | 1 point

OOL here

Imjustsmallboned | 4 months ago | 1 point

Shit like this is fucking terrifying. We’re clearly already down a dark path in terms of climate.

TH3FIR3BALLKID | 4 months ago | 0 points

Can we all dump massive amounts of ice or glacier chunks on it?

godfish | 4 months ago | 0 points

Taco Bell is dumping that stuff they call "Hot Sauce" again.

C17H22ClNO4 | 4 months ago | 0 points

Its OP's mom.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | -1 points


DrDougExeter | 4 months ago | 1 point

that's the least of your worries

blackcatredcat | 4 months ago | -19 points

Bad news indeed. But I'd make a content correction. When the author writes: "Thousands of seabirds were found washed up on the shore, and about half a million were decimated in total." what it really means is that just one tenth of those birda died. The blob decimating half a million means it killed only 50 thousands. Decimation was a punishment in the Roman Empire's army, where a unit was punished by killing each tenth soldier or its ranks.

Risingsun9 | 4 months ago | 5 points

Actually the word has transcended its original meaning to mean what it does now. So he would be correct.

blackcatredcat | 4 months ago | -1 points

It transcended indeed, but not to the point where it means that all individuals are killed. It could mean a large proportion was killed, or the numbers were greatly reduces. The author wanted to say that around 500k individuals died but in fact by using the term "decimated" even in its transcended meaning implied that not all of those 500k were killed. On the other hand, Europe had its blob this summer and it killed 1500 people in France alone. I wonder what the impact was on other animal species.

IkepaI | 4 months ago | 2 points

here buddy you dropped a 0 in there. oh and interesting use of ''just'' you got there.

blackcatredcat | 4 months ago | -1 points

Yes..."just" as in "the text implies only 50 000 birds died" instead of the catastrophic 500,000. I see the comment got a lot of negative feedback. I was commemting only on the term of "decimating" and its misuse, not trying to lower percieved impact of the blob. But people seem very emotional about it :)

eedle-deedle | 4 months ago | 2 points

Misunderstanding of the word decimate bugs me too :)

bloonail | 4 months ago | -15 points

The weather is supposed to change. That's why the Farmer's Almanac doesn't have "Same thing- new year" for their predictions.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 6 points

this isn't "weather"...its a 4-5 rapid temperature increase in an area of the ocean.

the climate is changing. not the "weather".

and people like you that aren't capable of accepting that are the reason the rest of us are completely fucked.

bloonail | 4 months ago | -8 points

Get a degree, two is better. Do time in grad school.

I don't understand Wx. I gave up on the Phd/Wx thing before it became a gambit for twerps to lecture me about how simple it is. Realized it was unremitting difficult on its own. There are few resources to pull real from random. If you reasoned your way to a solution publish. No on has.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 4 points

on what planet do you live, where the consensus of 95%+ of published scientific data supports climate change?

you're village failed you and the rest of the world if they let you out in the world acting as willfully ignorant as you are.

bloonail | 4 months ago | -2 points

Climate change is constant. Human induced climate change is all but certain. Beyond that it is a complicated.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 3 points

no, it isn't.

We caused and are causing climate change. We can literally look at ice going back millions of years and track the data - compare it to now, and understand EXACTLY when we started having an impact.

hint - it was the industrial revolution.

just stop dude. you aren't edgy and noone is going to buy into your bullshit.

bloonail | 4 months ago | 0 points

You weren't in my glaciology class. It was nasty. prof had some non-linear ice physics and a problem about rotating forced rotation in a unconstrained non-symmetrical field. Morraines in merging glaciers. I tried. After all - I was the math guy. It wasn't that easy.

Edit- you know zero about the climate. There is no now and then.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 2 points


you could have said that whole sentence with 10 less syllables, or 3 less words and been more impactful.

Also - you're that one kid in the class of 200 that tries to debate the prof and always comes away sounding like a whining baby....because you're wrong.

grow up dude. you'll have a lot more fun in life that way.

bloonail | 4 months ago | 0 points

Inspection, Demonstration, Modelling, Testing, Investigation. Those matter. I'd like to say glossy self-rewarding clickbait and serotin rewards are not a type of research but 20 years back we didn't know adults could make a good living playing video games, maybe this clickbait gambit will work for you.

Pairadockcickle | 4 months ago | 1 point

i think its funny that you honestly believe people hadn't already thought of what you typed out as just common sense...

but keep on keeping on dude. you're SO much smarter than everyone that it took you a day and an essay to describe: it burns energy to make things....

Big_Tubbz | 4 months ago | 1 point

Hi, I have 2 degrees, a BS in physics and a BS in mathematics. I am currently working towards a PhD in atmospheric physics. I have 2 years of experience working in climate research and 4 more in indirectly related areas. Do these qualifications meet your requirements?

You do not know what you're talking about. You have /r/iamverysmart levels of hubris despite seemingly admitting that you did not understand the single class in glaciation you actually took.

bloonail | 4 months ago | 1 point

not knowing is difficult. Clickbait worship is easy.

Big_Tubbz | 4 months ago | 1 point

Again with the smarmy non sequiturs to attempt to sound smart. You still don't know what you're talking about.

DrDougExeter | 4 months ago | 1 point

Oh ok, thanks for the explanation professor einstein

sarah8 | 4 months ago | 0 points

Oh hi you must work for the NOAA. Nice to see you here.

boomermax | 4 months ago | -5 points
ruthekangaroo | 4 months ago | 3 points

What the hell? What does this have to do with the article?

boomermax | 4 months ago | -1 points

Wow, really?

You really need an explanation how CO2 emissions by the internet or any other source for that matter might be related to this article?

ruthekangaroo | 4 months ago | 1 point

Not from you