Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life (iflscience.com) 268

Posted by msmash from the that's-how-it-begins,-the-fever dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life More

Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life

Comments Filter:

  • Giant Bubbler (Score:5, Funny)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:23AM (#52035471) Journal
    I propose the installation of a giant aquarium bubbler at the bottom of the ocean.

  • Yikes (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:23AM (#52035473)

    I wouldn't want to be a dolphin right now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      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)

        by kenj123 ( 658721 )
        Problem is the dolphins won't have anything to eat. Ecosystems have a lot of interdependencies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by invid ( 163714 )

          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.

      • 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)

          by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          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)

        by Maritz ( 1829006 )
        Probably just a straight up troll. Probably wanted a few dozen replies along the lines of "OMFG Dolphin iz a mammal u dumb fuck". Might still get 'em.

    • HGTTG (Score:5, Funny)

      by number6x ( 626555 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @12:20PM (#52036075)

      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.

  • Reducing carbon emissions, is that the most singleminded meme ever?

  • -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

    • Expect more over-the-top hysterical claims in the months to come, as the window finally begins closing on this monstrous social scam.

      • 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.

        • 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)

        by Maritz ( 1829006 )
        lol. Don't hold your breath on that closing window, mate.
    • Yes, none of the scientists who make it their life's work to study issues such as this ever considered this possibility, SuperGenius.

    • Re:Some perspective here... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cats-paw ( 34890 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @12:31PM (#52036229) Homepage

      -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 ?

      • 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)

        by Alomex ( 148003 )

        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)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @01:14PM (#52036819)

      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.

    • 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!

    • -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.

  • 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).

    • On geological scales, 14 years isn't soon. 14 years is now.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Layzej ( 1976930 )

        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.

  • 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
  • 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 oceans died eighteen years ago (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by BitZtream ( 692029 )

    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)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:51AM (#52035743)

    Get Billy Mays to use his stuff, it'll fix it. [youtube.com] You may also get your clothes cleaned at the same time.

  • Oceans Could Soon Not Have Enough Oxygen To Support Marine Life

    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.

  • No. Might in 2030 have detectable decrease (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:53AM (#52035765)

    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.

  • Let's just see when this happens, Just like Al Gore's prediction.. http://dailycaller.com/2016/01... [dailycaller.com]
  • 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.
  • Side question. The Oxygen has to go somewhere. The atmosphere? Chemical reactions?

    • 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.

      • Remember every tonne of carbon burned removes 2 tonnes of oxygen from the atmosphere and adds 3 tonnes of CO2.

        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?

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mbeckman ( 645148 )
      Climate change alarmists are always using false analogies to dismiss the questions of climate change skeptics. There is actually zero relationship between the questions posed by climate skeptics and the tobacco industry. And see how easily you slide into another long-belabored alarmism: population overgrowth. The whole "populution" cry has been soundly debunked ever since Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne predicted mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s. While famine

  • Oh, it's just a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mbeckman ( 645148 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @01:41PM (#52037177)
    Secure from battle stations, environmental joiners. Nobody has actually _measured_ a depletion trend for O2 in the Earth's oceans. It's all based on dodgy climate simulations:

    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)

    by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @01:48PM (#52037265) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close