Takes a couple of decades depending on the speed at which said animals reproduce.
And I'm talking ecological niches. If the salmon industry wants to preserve the salmon, that's up to the salmon industry.>those higher crop yields DON'T take into account the higher temperatures that come via co2 in the wild.
mentions that temperature increases will result in lower crop yields if we do not adapt or genetically engineer the crops for higher temperatures. It is taken into account.
However, if you apply even the most basic of critical reading skills, you will soon realize that this also means that adapting or genetically engineering the crops for higher temperatures to prevent a reduction in crop yields is entirely possible.>Oh, and before you go "But my genetic improvement"; once again THAT SHIT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
Neither does global warming you disingenuous fuck.
Also, you might be wrong if the advances in genetic sequencing and artificial intelligence manage to continue their current pace over the next decade.>Everything in nature has a very delicate balance
Nature as a whole is quite capable of taking a hit and adapting. Our CO2 emissions and other bullshit means individual species will die, sure. This is not a flaw in the system. Rather, it is how nature balances things. >>971896>bottom of the food chain
Algae and seagrasses are also at the bottom of the food chain. Oysters and shit going growing lower in numbers might punish certain specialized species higher up the food chain and cause a temporary decline in ocean life populations before other species can plug the hole, but given how populations can grow exponentially when given enough space, this too shall pass rather quickly.
In the end, the choice is between the 1% enjoying their salmons, tuna, oyster, whale and lobster versus the 99% not having to eat bugs.