The Ocean Is Running Out Of Oxygen

[Sagebee]

Yeah, but it's already affecting marine life as we speak.

As I've said, roughly 70% of the oxygen that we breath comes from the ocean. If this continues, it will significantly impact our own lives.

This will also affect the fishing industry worldwide and all other oceanic related fields. So you can get a sense of how catastrophic this is. The issue is of paramount importance.

Do they have a projected time frame if not dealt with that it would have severe impact on people?

I feel if a large population died in result of this the rich and politicians wouldn't bat an eye and might even consider advantageous

 

[Lightbringer]

Do they have a projected time frame if not dealt with that it would have severe impact on people?

I feel if a large population died in result of this the rich and politicians wouldn't bat an eye and might even consider advantageous

Scientists predict that the full catastrophe of climate change will be felt within 50 years. But recently, Scientist have said that the measurements taken of climate change have been somewhat archaic and some of the new models are saying it'd be within 30 years instead.

It's still going to be within our lifetimes and we're already feeling the impact of climate change as we speak. Maybe not you or I specifically, but different regions are already suffering extreme temperatures, drought, sea level, etc. to the point where the lands are becoming uninhabitable.

 

[kimb]

Are you intentionally being disingenuous or did you not read the article yourself?

You quoted the article out of context.


Literally in that same article, it says:

"The change is connected with warmer ocean temperatures. “Warmer water holds less oxygen,” Levin explained. Also, increased surface temperatures make it more difficult for oxygen to reach relatively deeper parts of the ocean."



In the original journal published about the loss of oxygen in the oceans, it says:

"In the open ocean, global warming, which is primarily caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions, is considered the primary cause of ongoing deoxygenation."



And in the same passage of which you misquoted, you left out the part where it said:

"A second source of deoxygenation also plagues the coastal waters. Although this problem has nothing to do with warmer waters caused by human-induced climate change, humans aren’t off the hook."


It's talking about a second factor which doesn't have to do with climate change specifically, but the loss of oxygen being quadrupled is still mainly due to climate change.

And the paragraph under your quote states "In estuaries and other coastal systems strongly influenced by their watershed, oxygen declines have been caused by increased loadings of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic matter, primarily from agriculture; sewage; and the combustion of fossil fuels. In many regions, further increases in nitrogen discharges to coastal waters are projected as human populations and agricultural production rise.Climate change exacerbates oxygen decline in coastal systems through similar mechanisms as those in the open ocean, as well as by increasing nutrient delivery from watersheds that will experience increased precipitation."

Again, this is a matter of to what degree does climate change effect ocean deadzones. Pollution causes ocean deadzones, and climate change only makes matters worse. There's more chemistry involved in causing ocean deadzones then there are climate effects. Yes, the effects of climate change only make the situation of dead zones worse, but to say the solution to solving ocean dead zones is looking at climate change is false. Climate change is a factor, not the cause. I don't know if you can put the chemistry terms into perspective, but literally under the graph showing global higher rates of deoxygenation it states, "The global map indicates coastal sites where anthropogenic nutrients have exacerbated or caused O2 declines to <2 mg liter−1 (<63 μmol liter−1) (red dots), as well as ocean oxygen-minimum zones at 300 m of depth (blue shaded regions)." This has nothing to do with a matter of temperature, but a matter of chemical processes.

And I'm not trying to be a braggart when I say this, but you just cannot check me on this. I'm well in formed on ocean dead zones, I have hands on experience, both in university, and in laboratories observing algae from the Chesapeake and Hudson bay. Look at wiki, look at any government site outside of your articles, and you will find little to nothing about climate change in relation to ocean deadzones.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

 

[Lightbringer]

And the paragraph under your quote states "In estuaries and other coastal systems strongly influenced by their watershed, oxygen declines have been caused by increased loadings of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and organic matter, primarily from agriculture; sewage; and the combustion of fossil fuels. In many regions, further increases in nitrogen discharges to coastal waters are projected as human populations and agricultural production rise.Climate change exacerbates oxygen decline in coastal systems through similar mechanisms as those in the open ocean, as well as by increasing nutrient delivery from watersheds that will experience increased precipitation."

Again, this is a matter of to what degree does climate change effect ocean deadzones. Pollution causes ocean deadzones, and climate change only makes matters worse. There's more chemistry involved in causing ocean deadzones then there are climate effects. Yes, the effects of climate change only make the situation of dead zones worse, but to say the solution to solving ocean dead zones is looking at climate change is false. Climate change is a factor, not the cause. I don't know if you can put the chemistry terms into perspective, but literally under the graph showing global higher rates of deoxygenation it states, "The global map indicates coastal sites where anthropogenic nutrients have exacerbated or caused O2 declines to <2 mg liter−1 (<63 μmol liter−1) (red dots), as well as ocean oxygen-minimum zones at 300 m of depth (blue shaded regions)." This has nothing to do with a matter of temperature, but a matter of chemical processes.

And yet that quote doesn't contradict what I said.

You said this in your previous comment and now you're shifting this discussion.

Did you read any of these? You realize ocean dead zones have little to nothing to do with climate change and more to do with algricultural run off of nitrogen, general pollution, and oil spills? I've done extensive research and study on this topic for CHM.

We've established that this is simply not true.


Here is what the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO has to say about it:

You must be registered for see links

"deoxygenation is worsening in the coastal and open ocean. This is mainly the result of human activities that are increasing global temperatures (CO2-induced warming) and increasing loads of nutrients from agriculture, sewage, and industrial waste, including pollution from power generation from fossil fuels and biomass."



I think you fail to grasp what the issue here is and what the articles are talking about.

This isn't about the creation of dead zones, this is about the exacerbation in size at an excessive rate.

I never denied that pollution had a hand in creating dead zones, but the fact that dead zones have quadrupled in size is primarily caused by climate change as these sources point out.

Either way, both pollution and climate change are tied together and both are mainly man-made problems. So there's not much point in us arguing over the minutiae of it all since we both already agree that there needs to be excessive action taken on both fronts.

 

[Onii Chan]

I'm up here like

You must be registered for see images

none of yall know anything about science and its funny af

 

[kimb]

And yet that quote doesn't contradict what I said.

You said this in your previous comment and now you're shifting this discussion.



We've established that this is simply not true.


Here is what the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO has to say about it:

You must be registered for see links

"deoxygenation is worsening in the coastal and open ocean. This is mainly the result of human activities that are increasing global temperatures (CO2-induced warming) and increasing loads of nutrients from agriculture, sewage, and industrial waste, including pollution from power generation from fossil fuels and biomass."



I think you fail to grasp what the issue here is and what the articles are talking about.

This isn't about the creation of dead zones, this is about the exacerbation in size at an excessive rate.

I never denied that pollution had a hand in creating dead zones, but the fact that dead zones have quadrupled in size is primarily caused by climate change as these sources point out.

Either way, both pollution and climate change are tied together and both are mainly man-made problems. So there's not much point in us arguing over the minutiae of it all since we both already agree that there needs to be excessive action taken on both fronts.

But taking care of the source of the issue rather than the factors that amplify it being knocking out two birds with one stone. There are actual solutions being implimented by EPA have proven to reverse the issue, ex. fertilzers that dont contain nitrates, run off blockades and buffers to prevent nitrogen and other algricultural pollutants from flowing into estuaries connected to oceans, EPA septic regulations, etc. If the pollutants that trigger deadzones arent introduced into oceans, then climate change won't be a factor that amplies the issue.

Honestly, if you wanted to help the issue on a personal level, go vegan. The vast majority of nutrient pollutants come from animal factory farms; farmers use an absurd amount fertizilers that are saturated in nitrogen to grow grain for cows and other livestock. Going vegan or even vegetarian would greatly reduce the amount of nitrogen required to maintain livestock.

It even helps with your climate change issue, 18% of all global CO2 emission come animal algriculture, which is more C02 emitted from all cars, trucks, boats, plants, trains, and various other forms of transportation around the world combine. If you're truly concerned about the environment in terms of deadzones and climate change, going vegan would be a huge step forward.

I'm up here like

You must be registered for see images

none of yall know anything about science and its funny af

Says the guy with the syntax of a country bumpkin living in the mountains of Montana. The science behind ocean deadzones is basic; you were probably taught this shit in high school environmental science, but maybe you were too busy trying to get ninja handsigns downpat in class. Fertilzers containing nitrogen and various other phosphorus based fertilzers in farming soil runs off through estuaries into rivers that flow into the ocean. The excess nitrogen pollutes the water cause an explosion in the growth of algae blooms and bacteria which blocks out the sun and consumes the oxygen in the water, and after the algae dies, the decomposition brought upon by the bacteria consume the remaing oxygen in the water, creating a deadzone.

You don't even need to go into the chemistry or biochemistry behind this process to understand it, yet alone have an opinion, but maybe this is still too hard of a process for you to grasp?

 

[Lightbringer]

But taking care of the source of the issue rather than the factors that amplify it being knocking out two birds with one stone. There are actual solutions being implimented by EPA have proven to reverse the issue, ex. fertilzers that dont contain nitrates, run off blockades and buffers to prevent nitrogen and other algricultural pollutants from flowing into estuaries connected to oceans, EPA septic regulations, etc. If the pollutants that trigger deadzones arent introduced into oceans, then climate change won't be a factor that amplies the issue.

Honestly, if you wanted to help the issue on a personal level, go vegan. The vast majority of nutrient pollutants come from animal factory farms; farmers use an absurd amount fertizilers that are saturated in nitrogen to grow grain for cows and other livestock. Going vegan or even vegetarian would greatly reduce the amount of nitrogen required to maintain livestock.

It even helps with your climate change issue, 18% of all global CO2 emission come animal algriculture, which is more C02 emitted from all cars, trucks, boats, plants, trains, and various other forms of transportation around the world combine. If you're truly concerned about the environment in terms of deadzones and climate change, going vegan would be a huge step forward.

Well like I said, pollution and climate change go hand-in-hand. I'm obviously in favor of tackling those issues.

But you attacked me on something you yourself were misinformed about, which lead to this entire exchange, when we were in fact in agreement of the overall matter.

And as for going vegan, I've been steadily taking away meat from my diet and stopped eating beef altogether. So there's that. But it would matter little if more people don't do it.

I'm just trying to make people aware of the severity of the issue which is the underlying problem considering the anti-science movement we're facing in U.S.

 

[kimb]

Well like I said, pollution and climate change go hand-in-hand. I'm obviously in favor of tackling those issues.

But you attacked me on something you yourself were misinformed about, which lead to this entire exchange, when we were in fact in agreement of the overall matter.

And as for going vegan, I've been steadily taking away meat from my diet and stopped eating beef altogether. So there's that. But it would matter little if more people don't do it.

I'm just trying to make people aware of the severity of the issue which is the underlying problem considering the anti-science movement we're facing in U.S.

Cool, I can respect that.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Well like I said, pollution and climate change go hand-in-hand. I'm obviously in favor of tackling those issues.

But you attacked me on something you yourself were misinformed about, which lead to this entire exchange, when we were in fact in agreement of the overall matter.

And as for going vegan, I've been steadily taking away meat from my diet and stopped eating beef altogether. So there's that. But it would matter little if more people don't do it.

I'm just trying to make people aware of the severity of the issue which is the underlying problem considering the anti-science movement we're facing in U.S.

And please do explain how big the anti science movement is in the usa many rather have proof because they are skeptical on how much climate change will effect them. to call it an anti science movement is a broad misinformed answer which does not help your cause at all it is more or less unconstructive. The majority of the usa is pro science rather then anti science.

 

[Dremolite]

How is the ocean running out of oxygen?

 

[Onii Chan]

Says the guy with the syntax of a country bumpkin living in the mountains of Montana. The science behind ocean deadzones is basic; you were probably taught this shit in high school environmental science, but maybe you were too busy trying to get ninja handsigns downpat in class. Fertilzers containing nitrogen and various other phosphorus based fertilzers in farming soil runs off through estuaries into rivers that flow into the ocean. The excess nitrogen pollutes the water cause an explosion in the growth of algae blooms and bacteria which blocks out the sun and consumes the oxygen in the water, and after the algae dies, the decomposition brought upon by the bacteria consume the remaing oxygen in the water, creating a deadzone.

You don't even need to go into the chemistry or biochemistry behind this process to understand it, yet alone have an opinion, but maybe this is still too hard of a process for you to grasp?

Uh no, everyone knows the oxygenititonicotons come from the trees. See you can't even understand real science, cant fool me with made up words like ''algae'' or ''deadzone'', everyone knows that stuff doesn't exist.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Donald J Trump]

Does this mean I'll no longer be able to breathe underwater?

 

[Lightbringer]

Does this mean I'll no longer be able to breathe underwater?

Sorry Aquaman.

 

[Dremolite]

Does this mean I'll no longer be able to breathe underwater?

Twist of fate.

 

[Brady]

So you're stalking my life now?

The fact is that sitting there posting links or protesting in the street's won't do anything. Unless you're holding a gun to the heads of these men causing this, at the most you're just entertaining the people causing this.

 

[Lightbringer]

The fact is that sitting there posting links or protesting in the street's won't do anything. Unless you're holding a gun to the heads of these men causing this, at the most you're just entertaining the people causing this.

So you're advocating that I buy a gun and start threatening people with it?

 

[Brady]

So you're advocating that I buy a gun and start threatening people with it?

It's quite clear I'm advocating the physical removal of these people. If you don't agree with this idea, then enjoy making these pointless threads on Narutobase and watching hopelessly as these people continue to muck up the environment.

 

[Lightbringer]

It's quite clear I'm advocating the physical removal of these people. If you don't agree with this idea, then enjoy making these pointless threads on Narutobase and watching hopelessly as these people continue to muck up the environment.

Ok, so when I tell you that Republican Senator Steve Scalise was shot by a protester, which only emboldened Steve Scalise on his views on Gun Rights.

So the act of shooting not only made Steve Scalise a sympathetic character, but now gave him more power and more determination to continue to do what he has been doing, which got him shot in the first place.

 

[Robbiebah]

When they stop eating meat lmfao