Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life (iflscience.com) 268
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."
Giant Bubbler (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds silly but we might not have any choice.
Re: Giant Bubbler (Score:3)
Really? Clearly you don't understand how big the ocean is. Might as well get a toddler to blow into a straw because that's about as effective this would be globally. Maybe you could support local populations of certain species. Basically an aquarium in the ocean.
Re: Giant Bubbler (Score:5, Funny)
How about getting Trump and a couple of other politicians to blow into that straw? Only problem might be raising the ocean temperature with all of that hot air.
Re: Giant Bubbler (Score:4, Funny)
I just want to see how big the plastic treasure chest is that lets that many bubbles out!
Re:Giant Bubbler (Score:5, Funny)
I propose the installation of a giant aquarium bubbler at the bottom of the ocean.
the treasure chest that opens to release a torrent of built up bubbles is a classic, but i've always been partial to the skeleton at the helm with his head bobbing in the air stream.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already buy windmill aerators for your pond... you could fit a few thousand of the really large ones to floating platforms and have them floating on the ocean.
Re: (Score:3)
All the plastic bags in the ocean will plug it up.
Re: (Score:3)
And a turbine just above it so the bubbles will turn the blades to generate electricity that run the pump that creates the bubbles that turn the blades to ...
Re: (Score:2)
I propose the installation of a giant aquarium bubbler at the bottom of the ocean.
Though clearly a joke, aquarium bubblers don't actually add oxygen to the water. They're meant to break the surface tension and give it a little churn to allow natural gas exchange to work more efficiently. A hang-on-back filter, or pack of feeding piranhas, will achieve the same effect in a tank. Water temperature also plays a role in oxygen availability. The warmer it is, the less it's able to provide to its residents.
Re: (Score:3)
... and we'll make the fish pay for it! Make America's oceans great again!
Or giant solar powered paddelrs (Score:2)
like greenhouses use to break the surface tension and aerate the reservoirs.
Most of the Oxygen You Breath Comes From the Ocean (Score:4, Informative)
Simple fact: Most of the oxygen you breath comes from the ocean. [earthsky.org]
Yikes (Score:4, Funny)
I wouldn't want to be a dolphin right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have rated that funny, but I am not sure whether the author knows dolphins are mammals which would make this a humorous remark or the author is normal internet idiot, which would make this a face palm post.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is the dolphins won't have anything to eat. Ecosystems have a lot of interdependencies.
They'll eat smaller dolphins, who in turn will eat smaller dolphins, who in turn will eat the seaweed thriving from all that CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have rated that funny, but I am not sure whether the author knows dolphins are mammals which would make this a humorous remark or the author is normal internet idiot, which would make this a face palm post.
However well they can breathe they are still carnivores and their food needs either oxygen dissolved in water or food which needs oxygen dissolved in water.
But, as far as we know, the OP could just be completely off topic commenting that he's posting on Slashdot while competing on a rally race. Which would make it really inconvenient for him to be a dolphin at this very moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I guess they're finally going to have get off their lazy asses and learn to walk on land like the rest of us. Don't even get me started about those whales.
Re: (Score:2)
HGTTG (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Think outside the box (Score:2)
Reducing carbon emissions, is that the most singleminded meme ever?
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I am not a denier. But I do think science is needed unless we find the cure is worse than the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that all this new technology comes down to reducing carbon. No alternatives are conceivable. All the incentives mandate means, not the end.
Re: Think outside the box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Think outside the box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Think outside the box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you are so much smarter than the climatologists. Since you have this killer argument, why don't you publish. Clearly you are a statistical wunderkind, so get to it, publish and destroy AGW...
Unless of course you're talking absolute bullshit, and repeating some talking point you heard somewhere which, with your limited knowledge, you thought "Hey, that's a killer argument." If that's the case, then you're just a witless moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because our data points are accurate to +/-4000 years.
Why exaggerate?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see rising CO2 levels and changing coastlines being an issue. Over population is an issue. Polluting our environment is an issue.
I'm persuaded by facts not by rhetoric and certainly not by being cursed at. It looks as if you ignored my points? Why is that?
Why would anyone say that the temperature
Re: (Score:2)
1) While a temp change of 2C might not sound like the 'sky is falling' to you, it is to most living species.
2) Most people concerned about the climate would see nuclear as a viable option. A few loud squawkers do not speak for everyone. Also, politicians listen to the squawkers.
3) Most people do. You just don't hear about it because a lot of small things add up to real savings. Also, your extreme positions are not the only valid solutions towards working to an answer. A higher efficiency car, insulation,
Re: (Score:2)
But the cure isn't. Many of the technologies exist, but because oil is heavily subsidized and is essentially a protected industry and energy source, they can't get a leg up. Pricing carbon would give the free market a better opportunity to refine alternative technologies.
And just ponder a collapse of marine ecoysystems for a moment. How many millions rely directly or indirectly on those ecosystems. Are you saying curbing CO2 emissions is worse than mass starvation?
Re: Think outside the box (Score:2)
Carbon is the problem. There are no solutions that do not involve cutting it. Not even outside the box.
You however should please remain firmly inside the box. Out of the box is for smart people. When dumb people try it they end up crazy people.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are no solutions that do not involve cutting it."
How do you know this?
"You however should please remain firmly inside the box."
The very definition of narrowmindedness.
Calling me dumb for wanting to be creative, innovative and rigorous means that I shall not bother to respond to your posts in future.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a perfect example of the problem.
No, you are the problem. You are fixated with not reducing carbon emissions. You mention alternatives 3, 4 and 5, but give no indication of what these alternatives might be other than to keep repeating the phrase "think outside the box". So why don't you try thinking about it creatively and come up with some ideas. If you want to claim that there is something inherently wrong with reducing carbon emissions, then why not throw some alternative ideas around and we can start looking at them.
I'll give you an al
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the impact of the cure happens now while the impact of doing nothing mostly happens in a few generations and people in general are not very good at making decisions where one has to suffer in the present even if it means a much improved future.
We have to stop selling things in terms of climate change. For example electric cars. Most people are not going to buy them because they can be better for the environment (depends on the source of the electricity). But if you focus on the fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
How about some other cures that do not involve higher electricity prices? Have you considered any? Think outside the box.
The trope that our environment is worse than it was a century ago, really needs to die. Sheesh.
Some perspective here... (Score:2, Insightful)
-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 [earthsky.org], and their population dynamics are remarkably challenging to model. However, if they are not dying en masse, then the oxygen production will remain about
Re: (Score:2)
Expect more over-the-top hysterical claims in the months to come, as the window finally begins closing on this monstrous social scam.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky is falling,
Boy who cried wolf.
We have lots of cautionary tales from our youth that nobody seems to listen to. Because OH MY GAWD WE ALL GONNA DIE! makes great headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky is falling,
Boy who cried wolf.
We have lots of cautionary tales from our youth that nobody seems to listen to. Because OH MY GAWD WE ALL GONNA DIE! makes great headlines.
What point are you trying to make here? The sky was absolutely not falling. The boy ended up being eaten by wolves. Pick one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some perspective here... (Score:5, Insightful)
-The ocean is alkaline, which means that stronger base electrolytes (as compared to the weak carbonic acid) still dominate the charge balance.
however the ocean is becoming more acidic, and that trend will continue. saying it's still basic is not reassuring in the least.
-This is an El Nino year, the higher surface temperature will release more oxygen from the ocean because gas solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
chances are good that El Nino year's will become more common, in part because the oceans' average temperatures will contiune to rise. so we can expect the ocean to continue to lose more oxygen.
-Most of the world's oxygen comes from the phytoplankton [earthsky.org], 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.
what is en masse ? do you think we could detect a population drop of 5% or 10% ? is that en masse ? would it affect ocean oxygen levels ? yes, yes it would.
-The sky indeed is remaining above us, and not falling.
oh it absolutely is falling. slowly perhaps, maybe it will take 1 or 2 centuries. maybe a lot less.
And your point is that I shouldn't listen to the warnings from scientists, because they're all hysterical, but i should listen you ?
so we should do nothing until we're sure we're all going to die or something ?
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is that I shouldn't listen to the warnings from scientists, because they're all hysterical, but i should listen you ?
so we should do nothing until we're sure we're all going to die or something ?
Your statement assumes I'm not a scientist. The funny thing is if you read the opinions of some very well-informed papers in climate science, as others [wsj.com] have, you'll see the climate scientists still believe in the scientific method and there are many uncertainties that need continued exploration. Journalists, however, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
oh it absolutely is falling. slowly perhaps, maybe it will take 1 or 2 centuries. maybe a lot less.
You got it exactly backwards. By 2100 world population will be falling rather rapidly, and the problem will mostly take care of itself. So in the long run we are ok. The real problem is what will happen between now and then.
Re:Some perspective here... (Score:5, Informative)
odd that you missed the point even though you specifically stated it:water holds less dissolved oxygen as it gets warmer.
the ocean is getting warmer. O2 content is measurably going down, even without the effects if El Nino. phytoplankton oxygen production is completely irrelevant to that discussion.
and yes the ocean is currently alkaline, but that doesn't mean it's not acidifying. acidifying != acidic. to be acidic pH needs to be below 7, but to be acidifying it merely needs to be moving from a higher pH to a lower pH, which it is measurably doing.
your post is meaningless deflection, and certainly not insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an El Nino year, the higher surface temperature will release more oxygen from the ocean because gas solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
So this is just a preview of what we can expect as global temperatures continue to rise. Got it
-Most of the world's oxygen comes from the phytoplankton [earthsky.org], 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.
Nice use of a tautology to brush off a potential catastrophe. Paraphrasing "If no major disaster is happening to plankton things are pretty much the same...otherwise we're fucked cause our biggest source of oxygen is gone"
Your perspective is quite alarming!
Re: (Score:3)
-Most of the world's oxygen comes from the phytoplankton [earthsky.org], 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.
A report published in 2010 says "Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950". [scientificamerican.com] I wonder how much that has to do with the drop in oxygen in the oceans.
Soon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On geological scales, 14 years isn't soon. 14 years is now.
Re: (Score:3)
On geological scales, 14 years isn't soon. 14 years is now.
14 years for detection. No timeline for when this becomes a threat to marine life. The editor wanted an attention grabbing headline that is not supported by the paper or even the article.
Re: (Score:2)
at this point the theory of climate change is like...
Physics. It's physics. Attention grabbing headlines don't help, but that has nothing to do with the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Counter Perspective (Sorta) (Score:2)
The oceans are DYING!!!!! (Score:2)
Right on schedule, bitches.
Your grandchildren are going to think I'm lying when I tell them I used to eat bananas.
The oceans died eighteen years ago (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Doom and Gloom (Score:2, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
just like the way to make racism go away is to pretend it doesn't exist and never talk about it?
Yeah...no...that's foolish and ignorant.
Crazed alarmism DOESN'T HELP! (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [geocraft.com], or a helluva lot warmer than now - and life did fine.
Fixed this already (Score:4, Informative)
Get Billy Mays to use his stuff, it'll fix it. [youtube.com] You may also get your clothes cleaned at the same time.
The use of "could" invalidates the entire post (Score:3, Insightful)
The use of "could" makes the entire statement unfalsifiable and therefor non-scientific [vcu.edu]. 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" [wikipedia.org] of "15 minutes could save you 15%" is as reliable — and more fun too.
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of evidence will convince people who have already made up their minds. Do you disagree? What level of evidence would cause you to change your mind?
Re:The use of "could" invalidates the entire post (Score:4, Informative)
mi is still arguing like a lawyer. A year or so ago I gave him a link to an article that compared temperature and sea level rise to model projections and showed the models were mostly right on temperature and lagging on sea level rise. Here's a different one that does the same comparison of observations in 2007 to the projections from the IPCC 2001 (AR3) report which started its projections in 1990. [pbworks.com] But instead of taking in the information mi will reject it because it's not in his cherished format. If mi had any gumption he'd look up the projections from the AR3 report and the observations from 2007 to have his cherished 2 sources and see if what the paper said is true. Instead he's unwilling to meet anyone halfway and wants it all handed to him on a silver platter. Like I said, he argues like a lawyer.
You're Still Short on Facts (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org] 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.
No. Might in 2030 have detectable decrease (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking forward to another deadline (Score:2, Troll)
Equator first (Score:2)
Where is it going? (Score:2)
Re: Where is it going? (Score:2)
Quite a lot are being turned into CO2. Remember every tonne of carbon burned removes 2 tonnes of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds 3 tonnes of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Every ton of carbon burned removes ~2.67 tons of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds ~3.67 tone of CO2. Assuming ideal conditions and all that (no imperfect burning, no particulate ash, that sort of thing), of course.
Wherever did you get the bizarre notion that a carbon atom and an oxygen atom were the same size?
Stupid To Seek Proofs (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, it's just a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Garbag (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Let's fix this problem now with nuclear fission (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Polar ice caps might all melt away too... (Score:5, Insightful)
The polar caps are melting. They are melting even faster than anticipated. However, if you do not trust scientists you can just measure the CO2 levels of your ocean next to you. It is not really difficult. You can google how to build a proper probe. Beside that you could trust the scientists, as they would all keep their jobs in case of no global warming, because we would still want to know how the atmosphere works, how the see works etc.
Re:Polar ice caps melting faster than expected (Score:5, Informative)
They were wrong about the ice caps melting,
The arctic ice cap is melting much faster than predicted: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
Re:Polar ice caps melting faster than expected (Score:5, Funny)
Al Gore
DRINK!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was an OK book. Stephen King has written better. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, you're right, the deniers were wrong about the ice caps not melting. They are melting. We're making the a mess out of our planet and you'll take your chances on just moving forward down the same path and think nothing will happen.
Please get educated and hopefully a little tiny bit of intelligence. Maybe then you'll actually open your eyes and ears and look and listen instead of burying your head in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is I can't figure out if ThatBeDank is being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
its literally already happening.
the ice caps -ARE- melting.
ocean oxygen levels ARE dropping.
ocean pH IS rising.
Re: (Score:2)
As a tired old white man here in Arizona, I look forward to having beachfront property to sell to displaced coastal Californians. Profit!
Re:Cue the Tired Old White Men... (Score:4, Insightful)
How to tell if your post is racist: Replace the politically correct racial target with a politically incorrect one making the exact same statement and wait for SJWs to attack.
Racist much?
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of cycles in the oceans, like the Gulf stream, which are essential for providing nutrients to the oceans. The warm waters travel along the coasts to the poles where they quickly cool down and sink travelling back down along the coast towards the equator. The water picks up nutrients along the way and at some point the stream will come across an island or other barrier and rise to the surface completing the cycle. However if the surface water is too warm then it won't cool down fast enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. you're thinking of the ocean as a homogenous mixture of water. It's not.
Depth, pressure, salinity, dissolved O2 content, dissolved CO2 content, mineral content....many factors go into it, but the short of it is: it's not a homogenous mixture. its heterogeneous.
or stated better, on the small, local scale, its homogenous.
but globally, its heterogeneous.
it is very stratified, and different strata of the water have different behaviors.
the one we're most considered here with is the oxygen content
Re: (Score:2)
unfortunately you will voted down here for being factual and rational.
alarmists want only irrational fear-mongering fantasy. oh /.!
Re: (Score:3)
not so extraordinary once you consider that water holds less dissolved oxygen the warmer it gets.
there are multiple die offs in the fossil record of marine life likely tied to oxygen depletion of the oceans.
why do folks always ignore that the life that exists now is not the same as the life that existed then?
with several hundred million years in between life adapts for -current- conditions.
and when those conditions change, they die and get replaced by life adapted for the changed conditions.
the assumption t