Slashdot Mirror
Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life (iflscience.com)
An anonymous reader writes: As the climate continues to change in response to the increasing amount of carbon humans pump into the atmosphere, the oceans are being particularly hard hit from melting Arctic sea ice, acidification, and warming surface temperatures. Yet those are not the only difficulties that marine life has to deal with, as a new study reports that the oceans are also losing oxygen. As the majority of marine life relies on the oxygen dissolved in the oceans, it is worrying that noticeable differences have been observed in the gas concentrations in the world's waters. The reduction in oxygen will have profound effects on ocean biodiversity, though as the study published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles shows, not all regions will be affected in the same way or over the same period of time."Loss of oxygen in the ocean is one of the serious side effects of a warming atmosphere, and a major threat to marine life," said lead author Matthew Long of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it's been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change. This new study tells us when we can expect the impact from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability."
I propose the installation of a giant aquarium bubbler at the bottom of the ocean.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
I wouldn't want to be a dolphin right now.
... with beachfront property to sell, bleating: "Quit talking about globular warming! I got beachfront property to sell!!!"
Reducing carbon emissions, is that the most singleminded meme ever?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
They were wrong about the ice caps melting, pretty sure they're also going to be wrong about this one too.
I'll take my chances on nothing happening.
-The ocean is alkaline, which means that stronger base electrolytes (as compared to the weak carbonic acid) still dominate the charge balance.
-This is an El Nino year, the higher surface temperature will release more oxygen from the ocean because gas solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
-Most of the world's oxygen comes from the phytoplankton, and their population dynamics are remarkably challenging to model. However, if they are not dying en masse, then the oxygen production will remain about the same; some may be redistributed.
-The sky indeed is remaining above us, and not falling.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Once again the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are all too real. It is well documented Dihydrogen Monoxide directly prevents the absorption of Oxygen by air breathing organisms as well.
But only for very large values of 'soon'. TFA says we can expect the impact from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability by 2030 or 2040. This would make deoxygenation clearly attributable to climate change at that point. No date is given for when the ocean would become unlivable for marine life. (not that we should wait to find out).
Abstract: "ABSTRACT: Cyanobacteria make significant contributions to global carbon and nitrogen cycling, particularly in the oligotrophic subtropical and tropical gyres. The present study examined short-term (days) physiological and acclimation responses of natural cyanobacterial populations to changes in pH/pCO2 spanning the last glacial minimum, ~8.4/~150 ppm, to projected year 2100 values of ~7.8/~800 ppm. Fe- and P-replete colonies of Trichodesmium increased N2-fixation rates (nmol N colony1 h1) at pH 7.8 by 54% (range 6 to 156%) over ambient pH/pCO2 conditions, while N2-fixation at pH/pCO2 8.4 was 21% (range 6 to 65%) lower than at ambient pH/pCO2; a similar pattern was observed when the rates were normalized to colony C. C-fixation rates were on average 13% (range 72 to 112%) greater at low pH than at ambient pH and 37% (53 to 23%) greater than at high pH. Whole community assemblages dominated by Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus (47 to 95% of autotrophic biomass), whether nutrient-replete or P-limited, did not show a clear response of C-fixation rates to changes in pH/pCO2. Comparison of initial and final C-fixation responses across pH/pCO2 treatments suggests rapid acclimation of cellular physiology to new pH/pCO2 conditions. Changes in cell size and pigment content for Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus were minor and did not vary in a consistent manner with changes in pH/pCO2. These results for natural populations of all 3 cyanobacteria concur with previous research and suggest that one important response to changes in ocean pH and pCO2 might be an increase in N2 and C fixation by Trichodesmium under nutrient-replete conditions. The response of single-cell cyanobacteria to changes in pH/pCO2 will likely be indirect and controlled by the response to other variables, such as nutrients."
Source: http://www.int-res.com/article...
Soylent Oceanographic Survey Report, 2015 to 2019
Right on schedule, bitches.
Your grandchildren are going to think I'm lying when I tell them I used to eat bananas.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Wut? Written in the year 2000, global warmists claimed that snowfall is history in Britain:
Idiots.
They were wrong about the ice caps melting,
The arctic ice cap is melting much faster than predicted: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
Why should I care if marine life dies off? Sounds like their problem, not mine.
As predicted by Ted Danson. But it doesn't matter now because the rest of the planet was destroyed earlier this year, just as Al Gore predicted.
Before we talk about how we're going to destroy 'biodiversity' can we remember that iron ... pulling oxygen OUT of the oceans is theorized to be one of the events for the way life evolved on this planet?
You gotta stop with the doom and gloom crap, we already know the path between the beginning of time and this point in time had points that were FAR fucking worse than ANY prediction about global warming ... and yet ... here we are.
Now I'm certainly not saying that humans will do well or survive the changes to come, we most certainly won't survive forever, thats just one of the more depressing facts about the universe as we know it.
But the 'threat' of 'climate change' doesn't sound nearly as big bad ass scary when you look around and say 'no ... this isn't really anything new, we just haven't actually been here for the previous times its been like this'
Human civilization 10,000 years old
Earth: 4,500,000,000 years old
Get some perspective.
If you want people to listen, you're story has to be one that isn't obviously an attention grab. You can make the attention grab, you just gotta be a little more subtle about it.
If you were working on Wall Street, the same version of your story would be 'Amazon from running the smaller businesses and competition out of the market .. we'll have another great depression!!@#~!@$~!$@~'
And people respond with 'yea, okay, well thats not really that big of a deal and we've been there done that, we'll enjoy the benefits until then and deal with the bad parts at that point, and then we'll move on and life will be good again'.
Do you understand the problem with your delivery now maybe?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This over-the-top alarmism over climate change doesn't help - because credibility is permanently lost when the crazed predictions fail to come true.
The average temperature of the Earth in geological terms has been about 25C, or a helluva lot warmer than now - and life did fine.
Get Billy Mays to use his stuff, it'll fix it. You may also get your clothes cleaned at the same time.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Our current CO2 concentrations are about the lowest they've been in Earth's history. Granted, industrialization has increased it from a low of about 180 ppm to over 400 ppm in an alarmingly short span of time. But over the last few hundred million years, it's averaged a couple thousand ppm, with an estimated high around 7000 ppm. Temperatures are also currently some of the coldest they've ever been (we are just coming off an ice age after all). Throughout much of Earth's history, it's been about 6-8 C hotter than our current climate.
If CO2 levels a little higher than the current 400 ppm and elevated temperatures were enough to wipe out higher forms of marine life, we would've seen it in the fossil record. Unless they're hypothesizing that it's the rapidness of the current change which causes the problem, not the high CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures themselves. (This doesn't diminish the danger of global warming, since sea levels were also much higher during those times. High enough to be catastrophic to our current civilization. But a hypothesis that rising temperatures alone will wipe out marine life is an extraordinary claim.)
The use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor non-scientific. We get these in popular press — /. included — about weekly.
For several decades now such doom-sayers have been predicting disasters "soon" without a single one of them getting anywhere close. When the predicted time passes and anyone still has the attention span to ask: "Hey, was that wrong?" — the answer, if any, is: "We never said, it will happen, only that it could."
Basing public policy on these "predictions" is completely bogus. Geico's "promise" of "15 minutes could save you 15%" is as reliable — and more fun too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Look at the paper. It doesn't say that oxygen is decreasing to dangerous levels. It says that computers think that by 2030 it might be possible to measure a certain decrease in oxygen in certain places. The change is too small to measure at present, if that change is happening.
Al Gore's prediction was the ice would be gone in 2014. That doesn't square with "much faster."
Isn't it about time to throw Al Gore and his movie under the bus on behalf of ..... umm ..... less easily refuted alarmism?
"As the majority of marine life relies on the oxygen"
Isn't majority of life in the ocean is more likely plant life?
Seems like there is a feedback system where more CO2, makes more plants, makes more O2.
So long and thanks for all the fish. So sad that it has come to this. We tried to warn you but you did not listen.... *music fades*
Can we just get a hierarchical list of what's wrong with the oceans. in priority order?
"as water heats up, it expands, becoming lighter than the water below it and less likely to sink"
How is this an issue? Heat dissipates through water quickly.
Believable dude
Let's just see when this happens, Just like Al Gore's prediction.. http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...
I just got this package delivered fedex...
It's a kind of vase thingy with the words 'So long, and thanks for all the fish.' etched into it.
Really pretty, but I think it means that the dolphins are going to be OK.
Al Gore
DRINK!
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
All I see is liberal garbage articles that contain more FUD than science lately.
Al Gore's prediction was the ice would be gone in 2014. That doesn't square with "much faster."
Isn't it about time to throw Al Gore and his movie under the bus on behalf of ..... umm ..... less easily refuted alarmism?
Where did Al Gore predict that polar ice would be gone in 2014? In 'An Inconvenient Truth' he says that there were two major studies showing that the arctic ocean, which he refers to as the polar ice cap, would be ice free in the summer in 50 to 70 years. Using Google I could not find anything where Gore was predicting that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2014.
like greenhouses use to break the surface tension and aerate the reservoirs.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Simple fact: Most of the oxygen you breath comes from the ocean.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
..to see human-caused global warming start us down the one-way road to the ultimate demise of the human race and perhaps all life on Earth? I'm going to start hunting climate-change deniers, and fucking shoot them in the head, execution-style, just for the hell of it. Like any laws of any kind will matter at that point anyway.
When this starts, we will really see fish die off around the equator first. Hopefully, when that happens, China will realize how bad this really is and stop building new coal plants and then shut down what they have. In addition, this might make the far left finally realize that China is a huge emitter and needs to stop NOW. Sadly, the far left is as anti-science as the far right.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Side question. The Oxygen has to go somewhere. The atmosphere? Chemical reactions?
2015 - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/seven-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-in-five-years/
http://content.usatoday.com/co... Then he backpedalled and said "Mostly ice free"
It all starts at 0
Climate deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry can still claim that tobacco does not cause cancer as many lifetime smokers never get cancer. So they can easily use the false logic that if tobacco causes cancer then all smokers would get cancer. Yes, stopping the ruin of our planet and keeping people alive will be somewhat painful and it will tend to smack us all in the wallet. But how many have considered what kind of living hell will fall upon them if we do not fight tooth and nail to restore our environment. And the first, and most vital step is to limit human reproduction. Pollution is a consequence of human activity. The simple truth is that lower population reduces human activities. With smaller populations we need less industry, less agriculture, less mining, less transportation and less of just about everything. And of all things, advanced technology requires a lot less human workers as well as far fewer people in our military. Yet we are so locked into our political foolishness that no politician dares even mentioning mandatory birth controls.
But Gore was making it sound as though he was just parroting what "real climate scientists" told him.
So if Gore was wrong then that means that what the "real climate scientists" told him was wrong.
Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
Simple fact: Most of the oxygen you breath comes from the ocean.
Simpler Fact: Most of the life in the Oceans produces oxygen as a waste byproduct.
To cut through this natural variability and investigate the impact of climate change, the research team—including Curtis Deutsch of the University of Washington and Taka Ito of Georgia Tech—relied on the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy...Using the simulations to study dissolved oxygen gave the researchers guidance on how much concentrations may have varied naturally in the past. With this information, they could determine when ocean deoxygenation due to climate change is likely to become more severe than at any point in the modeled historic range.
Note to readers of research papers: phrases such as "relied on", "gave the researchers guidance", and "is likely to become" are all code words for "we don't have any real data."
Let us know when you do. Otherwise, file this report in the fiction section.
These are based on predictive computer models, not actual measurements. As the abstract says, "Anthropogenically forced trends in oceanic dissolved oxygen are evaluated in Earth system models..." then it goes on to portend dire effects in the 2030-2040: "We find that the forced signal should already be evident in the southern Indian Ocean and parts of the eastern tropical Pacific and Atlantic basins; widespread detection of forced deoxygenation is possible by 2030–2040."
As with many other alarmist reports this is based exclusively on computer models and suggests that the "forced signal should be evident" in 15-25 years. But there are no actual measurements backing the alarmist agenda. A GIGO check seems to be in order before new government programs are initiated.
Climate change is real, and something needs to be done about it, but this chicken little "the sky is falling" articles hurt rather than help the cause. They give specific worst case targets that are unlikely to be true just to get a headline. These can then be used by climate deniers to minimize the real impacts of climate change.
I find it odd that there is a group of people that will both say how continued burning of fossil fuels is destroying the environment while at the same time saying it will only be X number of years until solar power, nuclear fusion, or whatever will become cheap and plentiful enough to save us.
Either global warming is an imminent threat or it is not. If it is then we need to act now by using what technology we have now that can both reduce carbon output and compete with the price and availability of coal. That technology is nuclear fission.
If some new technology is coming along in time to save us from ourselves then global warming is not a real threat. We can just wait for this new technology to come along. But then technological advancement is not assured, we must have people doing research and these people will need to get paid for their work.
Here is the problem, at least in the USA, any research in nuclear power must get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Committee. This approval usually comes with funding from its parent agency the Department of Energy but that does not have to be. The federal government does not need to spend money on projects like the Polywell Fusor, they just need to allow private entities to fund and perform the research. Since such fusion research competes with the DOE pet projects like the Tokamak the people that want to do this research must be creative in how they get finds and licensing. This usually takes the form of working under the rules of the Department of Defense which has the authority to license nuclear power research so long as it has a military application, they cannot fund pure research on nuclear physics like the DOE.
We have the means to solve this problem but the biggest obstacle to solving it is the government agency mandated to solve our energy problems. Calling it the Department of Energy is a misnomer because there is little evidence that they have been advancing the nation's ability to reach energy independence.
One solution I see to this problem is that the states in the USA should assert their authority to license nuclear reactors for research and power on their own. The federal government only has the authority to act where the states allow. The states made the federal government so they can modify the terms under which it operates as they wish. Since the DOE is failing to live up to its mandate then perhaps some states could encourage this research within their own borders.
Given that few within the catastrophic man made global warming group are not scared enough of global warming to overcome their fear of nuclear fission power plants then I can only conclude that there is very little to fear from global warming. They cannot say we must do anything and everything to avert global warming but when nuclear fission is brought up they say we can't do that. If nuclear power is a greater threat to humanity than global warming then global warming is nothing to fear.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So have you decided what part of AGW you don't like? Besides its reporting in the popular press. Is it that CO2 doesn't absorb heat? That it doesn't build up in the atmosphere? Do you know of more than one way to transfer heat to space? You were very evasive in our last discussion.
Also, the only one currently talking about public policy appears to be you. I understand you have a rabid aversion to being told what to do, but that does not invalidate basic physics.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
Um, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. This is not some sort of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're claiming someone is a Scotsman, we're pointing out he's actually Japanese, and you're crying "Ha! No True Scotsman fallacy!"
Similar to the upcoming US election results
There are scientists that don't believe the climate sham.
Matthew Long is an AUTHOR, not a scientist.
Ted Danson is an ACTOR, not a scientist.
Al Gore is a POLITICIAN that has investments in "green"-technology, not a scientist.
And all of their predictions have been or are wrong.
The Man Made Climate Change agenda was constructed by international bankers in order so they could permanently tax your C02 output. Exhale c02? Too bad! Enjoy your tax! It will become the biggest scheme in the history of mankind thanks to repeater drone news outlets such as slashdot. The already discredited IPCC and the founder of the weather channel thinks it's horse shit
"Repeat a lie enough and it will become truth" - hitler
So the ocean is turning into hydrogen?
Al Gore's prediction
Oh? Which peer reviewed paper did he write again?
And fuck all sea life. I'm going to laugh when the ocean is completely lifeless. Fuck bees, too. Kill as many hives as you can find.
They might all have panic attacks and hyperventilate, depleting even more oxygen.
Doesn't most of the life in the ocean consume CO2 and secrete O2 as a waste product?
...we're all going to die.
This is nothing but propaganda to promote a carbon tax on people, which I will never pay.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonli...
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely [nearly] ice-free within the next five to seven years"
Based on work from the US Naval Postgraduate School. Not quite an iron-clad guarantee, and certainly no reason to throw out all the other science. NOAA's own work suggests 30 years is a possibility, others say by the end of the century.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So, I am a little confused how "Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life" due to "Loss of oxygen in the ocean is one of the serious side effects of a warming atmosphere, and a major threat to marine life," if during the Cretaceous Period when giant dinosaurs ruled the Earth and sea, global temperatures were 4 degrees C warmer than today and CO2 levels were 1700ppm. Which is roughly 4 times current levels of 420ppm....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
So because the effects of warming on a chaotic system's one reference point were not what you were told essentially means the entire science behind it is false, right? this has been said many times that there is difference between weather & climate. There indeed is warming happening and as a whole earth is warmer. now how does the atmosphere distributes this additional heat is unknown but what is known is that it will be bad for us even if the weather pattern changes somewhat.
Do you have enough sense to look at a slightly bigger picture and ask maybe there is something we have been doing ? or free market fundamentalism trumps all..
What the hell happened to slashdot?
Well, that's one way of being wrong.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Reducing oxygen MUST be caused by global warming, 'cause EVERYTHING is! Terrorism is because of global warming, starvation is because of global warming, having an attention span shorter than a goldfish is caused by global warming!
Anybody bother to correlate this oxygen reduction by proximity to industrial pollution? Like, I dunno, CHINA? RUSSIA? INDIA? PAKISTAN? Nah, why bother? Global warming! THAT's the ticket!
And how many peer reviewed papers on global warming have you read?
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that the minimum ice cover has roughly halved since the late 1970s. The reality of global climate change doesn't stand or fall based on comparison to whatever Al Gore said.
The ice is indeed going faster than the median of the models predicted for the 2007 IPCC (e.g., see here for article in 2007). Look at that chart. There's more recent data. 2012 was the lowest September ice extent at only ~3.4 million km^2, so it's still well ahead of the trend predicted in 2007. It's irrelevant that this still isn't as bad as the worst case possibility that Gore quoted. He said it *could* be as bad as that. That was possible. Unsurprisingly the worst-case scenario didn't happen. But we are significantly worse than the IPCC 2007 predictions. We're decades ahead of those predictions for sea ice at the north pole.
A lot of this doomsaying turns out to be bullshit... the frequency of it is high enough that you'd think the credibility of the people making these predictions would be impaired... but in some circles it just doesn't seem to matter.
Any prediction made... no matter how debunked... has no impact on their status.
And to make things more annoying... that same status is used to support future predictions in the manner of "do you know who I am!?"... never mind that you do know who they are and you know they've made a lot of bogus predictions.
Whatever...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
None, but then a lot of the materials I read are summaries from peer reviewed papers, and aren't a trailer for a movie by some one who lost a presidential race.
Everything in the newspaper is true, except the things i know about.
Seriously, try reading the actual papers, you may be surprised by what it really says.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
And you really think those summaries are more accurate than a movie trailer.
Yes. If you think otherwise maybe you should read something other than Fox News for a change.
Just read the fucking papers your telling everyone else to read dipshit. Those summaries aren't peer reviewed either.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?