<p>Biological communities (ecosystems) commonly change along topographic (bathymetric) slope - because conditions change along the slope. For example, there will be a temperature gradient with elevation along the side of a mountain, and gradients of temperature and the amount of incident sunlight reaching the sea floor just offshore. When climate changes, this can shift conditions up or down the slope.  </p>

<p>The organisms of an ecosystem must be able to colonize any "new habit" that may be created by climate change in order to take advantage of it.  If conditions shift too quickly for the species to adapt by migration along slope, species may become extinct before they can become established in another area. For example, consider coral reefs, which are dependent upon depth, if sea-level rises too quickly, the population of surviving corals may become too small to successfully colonize reefs in new areas. </p>

<p>The answer to your question is complex. If you search the web for the term <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6056/652.abstract?sid=73ed2d2a-f599-4334-9b58-c7a88243db26">velocity of climate change</a> you will find that your question is being actively researched by scientists. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-19T16:08:03.140Z
2014-08-19T16:08:03.140Z
Mark Rovetta
<p>On one hand it creates more habitat for oceanic life, on the other hand, it warms up the oceans and mixes the salt and fresh waters.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-19T08:00:36.930Z
How can the response of such an extremely complex system as the entire marine ecosystem be classified into the ridiculously simple concepts "good" or "bad"? Undoubtedly many species will be pushed to extinction. On the other hand, some will thrive. Some of those species have commercial value to humans, some have aesthetic value, some act as keystone species that many other species rely on, some might have almost no effect if they disappear, or their disappearance might even have a positive effect on other species. How do you even define "good" or "bad" in that context?
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-19T12:46:42.020Z
@naught101: x-x probably wants to know how life will do in general? Will it be a time of extinction, stable, or even taxon radiation? The rate of change will probably also put lifeforms under pressure. Looking forward to an answer.
tobias47n9e
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-19T13:02:37.313Z
So good==more species?
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-19T17:07:17.117Z
@naught101 I have proposed an edit to the question title that omits ambiguous terms 'good' and 'bad'.
David LeBauer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-20T02:29:24.750Z
@David, Well, that's a less value-laden question, for sure. But now I wonder if it's too broad. However, Mark's answer seems to deal with it well enough.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-28T07:42:08.810Z
@naught101 worse, it assumes and leaves no argument about whether sea levels are indeed rising. And assumes that that is both universal and that the effects are universal (rather than being localised and the effects also being different based on location).
jwenting
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-29T01:22:33.143Z
@jwenting: I don't think that's a problem. It might be worth making those assumptions explicit in the question, rather than implicit, but it would not be worth questioning them as part of this question. If they need to be questioned, it should be in a separate question (which could be linked from here).
naught101
<ocean><oceanography><global-warming>
How will the rising ocean affect aquatic life?
tox123
# How will the rising ocean affect aquatic life?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-08-18)

On one hand it creates more habitat for oceanic life, on the other hand, it warms up the oceans and mixes the salt and fresh waters.

**Tags:** ocean, oceanography, global-warming

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How can the response of such an extremely complex system as the entire marine ecosystem be classified into the ridiculously simple concepts "good" or "bad"? Undoubtedly many species will be pushed to extinction. On the other hand, some will thrive. Some of those species have commercial value to humans, some have aesthetic value, some act as keystone species that many other species rely on, some might have almost no effect if they disappear, or their disappearance might even have a positive effect on other species. How do you even define "good" or "bad" in that context?  
> **username_2**: @username_1: x-x probably wants to know how life will do in general? Will it be a time of extinction, stable, or even taxon radiation? The rate of change will probably also put lifeforms under pressure. Looking forward to an answer.  
> **username_1**: So good==more species?  
> **username_3**: @username_1 I have proposed an edit to the question title that omits ambiguous terms 'good' and 'bad'.  
> **username_1**: @username_3, Well, that's a less value-laden question, for sure. But now I wonder if it's too broad. However, Mark's answer seems to deal with it well enough.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 worse, it assumes and leaves no argument about whether sea levels are indeed rising. And assumes that that is both universal and that the effects are universal (rather than being localised and the effects also being different based on location).  
> **username_1**: @username_4: I don't think that's a problem. It might be worth making those assumptions explicit in the question, rather than implicit, but it would not be worth questioning them as part of this question. If they need to be questioned, it should be in a separate question (which could be linked from here).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-08-19. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

Biological communities (ecosystems) commonly change along topographic (bathymetric) slope - because conditions change along the slope. For example, there will be a temperature gradient with elevation along the side of a mountain, and gradients of temperature and the amount of incident sunlight reaching the sea floor just offshore. When climate changes, this can shift conditions up or down the slope.

The organisms of an ecosystem must be able to colonize any "new habit" that may be created by climate change in order to take advantage of it. If conditions shift too quickly for the species to adapt by migration along slope, species may become extinct before they can become established in another area. For example, consider coral reefs, which are dependent upon depth, if sea-level rises too quickly, the population of surviving corals may become too small to successfully colonize reefs in new areas.

The answer to your question is complex. If you search the web for the term [velocity of climate change](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6056/652.abstract?sid=73ed2d2a-f599-4334-9b58-c7a88243db26) you will find that your question is being actively researched by scientists.


---

