21 ms·

The Black Sea has lost more than a third of its habitable volume

152 points by upen 10y ago

PeterWhittaker 10y ago
Summary: The oxygen-rich habitable layer of the Black Sea has declined over the last few decades from a depth of 140m to a depth of only 90m. The oxic layer does not mix with the layers below. All theories as to why the decline has occurred are speculative, but some believe that the increase in H2S2 at greater depth may be implicated (though this is unsubstantiated).
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Your summary is quite inaccurate. As the article explains, the change in thickness of the oxygen-rich layer is well-explained by global warming and the addition of nutrients from farming. The H2S2 increase is also explained, except the causes of its precise depth are not. In discussing the changes in the Black Sea, it should be noted that Russia is heavily invested in fossil fuel production, and that Putin denies the reality of anthropocentric global climate change. This leads me to the possibility that the purpose of your comment is to divert criticism of Russia. Of course, that idea might be mistaken, and you honestly just misunderstood the article.
  - tsurkoprt 10y ago
    Yeah, right: http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/488516/7.jpg http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective...
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      Russia is behind the US and China because it has a far smaller population and economy. Furthermore, the US and China are strongly promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Russia is doing almost nothing along these lines (think of all the renewable energy stories you see here at HN. None of them are about Russia). Here's a link on the coverage of global climate change by the state-controlled Russian media: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi... By the way, American conservatives are completely opposed to Putin and Russia (except for Donald Trump, who is very friendly). But in this issue they are in complete agreement.
      - lqdc13 10y ago
        Climate change benefits Russia though. Why would they want to do something about it? A lot more land becomes arable. Trade routes don't freeze over as much. Countries with political enemies may get destabilized from immigration.
        woodandsteel 10y ago
        Exactly. And if the rest of the world goes to hell in the process, so be it. In fact, Russia has a basically win-lose, zero-sum of international relations, so I am guessing this sort of outcome would make Putin very happy.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        Any chance of a comment from the down voters? I'd be interested in reading the rebuttal to this comment.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        It's a judging opinion, there's not much to rebute there.
        woodandsteel 10y ago
        I have a question for you, but first let me say why I think Putin has a win-lose, zero sum of international relations. To start, Putin grew up and had his career in the old communist Soviet Union, and has made clear he thought it was absolutely wonderful. Now the USSR was a superpower, with 350 million people, the world's second largest economy, a military equal to that of the US, and it controlled Eastern Europe through communist puppet governments. Then in 1989-91, the Eastern European nations threw out the communist governments and broke away, communism was abandoned, all the non-Russian republics broke away from the USSR, and the military declined drastically. Now Russia has only 145 million people, much less territory, no solid allies except Bylarus, a military about one-fifth the strength of the US, and it's economy is ranked 10th in size. Putin has made clear that he wants to get back to superpower status, and to do that he has to take back a lot of territory, either through incorporation into Russia or as allies. He can't do that with the Central Asian former Soviet republics, partly because they are semi-allies of China. So he is trying to expand westward, and doesn't care at all that most of the population of the Eastern European nations want to stay aligned with the West. And to do this he uses various means such as military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. Well, that is my view. What is your view? Where do you think Putin is trying to go in the long term, and what sort of means do you think he uses?
  - ivan_gammel 10y ago
    I do not think Russia must be solely responsible for what's going on there. Russian government and Putin himself does recognize artificial nature of climate change, as was shown in his speech on Climate Change Conference in 2015. Truth is that Russia did not make big contribution to it in last 25 years (yes, there's huge oil and gas industry, but most of it is being exported, so it's a responsibility of consumers to use it in emission-neutral way). Current emissions are more than 25% below 1990 levels - can you say such thing about America, China or India? And this happens not only due to reduced output, but also because of some investment in more environmentally friendly manufacturing (yes, Russia has ecological standards and they are enforced - unfortunately, not fully because of corruption). There exist government-sponsored programmes to invest in green energy (e.g. new manufacturing facilities for solar panels), close the top polluters (like BTsBK) and reduce car emissions. It's not that easy to transform such a big economy and fix all the issues of Soviet planning, so it will take time to change and become as green as e.g. Germany (I doubt it's even possible to start something costly like Energiewende in Russia at this moment).
    - odabaxok 10y ago
      This sounds interesting, do you have sources (about emission levels by country, Russian ecological standards and how are they enforced, etc.)?
      - ivan_gammel 10y ago
        Emissions: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russianfederation.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russianfederation.... (note "inadequate" label - this web site rightly says that more could be done in terms of commitments) OECD report on standards: http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/38118149.pdf http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/38118149.pdf See "Key findings" section - it summarizes the current progress and remaining issues with environmental policy. No wonder, most of them are deeply rooted in overall political climate and related to corruption, but, still, there's some progress and majority of ordinary people and in the government is really concerned with ecology and climate change. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: https://www.mnr.gov.ru/english/ https://www.mnr.gov.ru/english/ There are many more sources in Russian, but it's hard to get a coherent view from them and harsh critics means more that people have very good understanding how it should be and push for more to be done, rather than that government ignores environmental issues like in some countries of South-East Asia, for example.
  - InclinedPlane 10y ago
    > anthropocentric You mean anthropogenic, btw.
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    Geopolitical influence in high profile forums. Interesting. I've read about it, but hadn't seen it in the wild on my own path. Thanks!
  - PeterWhittaker 10y ago
    You are partially correct: I scanned the article initially and wrote an inaccurate summary based on an inaccurate scan. As you point out, there is consensus on the causes, first, excess nutrients from fertilization in the USSR, and second, decreased ventilation in the post-USSR period caused by climate change. As to diverting criticism of Russia: BWA HA HA HA HA! That's funny. Little or nothing could provide greater proof of our not knowing each other. That's pretty funny. Wipes tear from eye.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      As I stated, it was possible that you wrote the comment to divert criticism. I said that because Russia has a giant army of internet trolls who spend all day doing that sort of thing. But I also said it was possible there was another cause, and I see now that is the case. My apologies.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
simplemath 10y ago
>The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it contains spyware. The name of the spyware is: Spyware.Exploit.BRTS.sciencebulletin.org
- andrewjf 10y ago
  Are these web filter things generally accurate?
  - simplemath 10y ago
    False positives are a thing... but just thought it was worth mentioning that it was flagged for me.
shmerl 10y ago
Hydrogen sulfide area is like a death zone in the depth of the Black Sea.
wildeswildes 10y ago
Hydrogen sulfide is in deep of Black See is deadly area. If clean water contamined by h2s2 most of will die about it.

152 points by upen 10y ago

Summary: The oxygen-rich habitable layer of the Black Sea has declined over the last few decades from a depth of 140m to a depth of only 90m. The oxic layer does not mix with the layers below. All theories as to why the decline has occurred are speculative, but some believe that the increase in H2S2 at greater depth may be implicated (though this is unsubstantiated).

woodandsteel 10y ago
Your summary is quite inaccurate. As the article explains, the change in thickness of the oxygen-rich layer is well-explained by global warming and the addition of nutrients from farming. The H2S2 increase is also explained, except the causes of its precise depth are not. In discussing the changes in the Black Sea, it should be noted that Russia is heavily invested in fossil fuel production, and that Putin denies the reality of anthropocentric global climate change. This leads me to the possibility that the purpose of your comment is to divert criticism of Russia. Of course, that idea might be mistaken, and you honestly just misunderstood the article.
- tsurkoprt 10y ago
  Yeah, right: http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/488516/7.jpg http://www.theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective...
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Russia is behind the US and China because it has a far smaller population and economy. Furthermore, the US and China are strongly promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Russia is doing almost nothing along these lines (think of all the renewable energy stories you see here at HN. None of them are about Russia). Here's a link on the coverage of global climate change by the state-controlled Russian media: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-russi... By the way, American conservatives are completely opposed to Putin and Russia (except for Donald Trump, who is very friendly). But in this issue they are in complete agreement.
    - lqdc13 10y ago
      Climate change benefits Russia though. Why would they want to do something about it? A lot more land becomes arable. Trade routes don't freeze over as much. Countries with political enemies may get destabilized from immigration.
      - woodandsteel 10y ago
        Exactly. And if the rest of the world goes to hell in the process, so be it. In fact, Russia has a basically win-lose, zero-sum of international relations, so I am guessing this sort of outcome would make Putin very happy.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        Any chance of a comment from the down voters? I'd be interested in reading the rebuttal to this comment.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        It's a judging opinion, there's not much to rebute there.
        woodandsteel 10y ago
        I have a question for you, but first let me say why I think Putin has a win-lose, zero sum of international relations. To start, Putin grew up and had his career in the old communist Soviet Union, and has made clear he thought it was absolutely wonderful. Now the USSR was a superpower, with 350 million people, the world's second largest economy, a military equal to that of the US, and it controlled Eastern Europe through communist puppet governments. Then in 1989-91, the Eastern European nations threw out the communist governments and broke away, communism was abandoned, all the non-Russian republics broke away from the USSR, and the military declined drastically. Now Russia has only 145 million people, much less territory, no solid allies except Bylarus, a military about one-fifth the strength of the US, and it's economy is ranked 10th in size. Putin has made clear that he wants to get back to superpower status, and to do that he has to take back a lot of territory, either through incorporation into Russia or as allies. He can't do that with the Central Asian former Soviet republics, partly because they are semi-allies of China. So he is trying to expand westward, and doesn't care at all that most of the population of the Eastern European nations want to stay aligned with the West. And to do this he uses various means such as military threats, sending in military forces, trying to undermine democratic governments through supporting extreme left and right wing parties, and a massive internet trolling campaign. Well, that is my view. What is your view? Where do you think Putin is trying to go in the long term, and what sort of means do you think he uses?
- ivan_gammel 10y ago
  I do not think Russia must be solely responsible for what's going on there. Russian government and Putin himself does recognize artificial nature of climate change, as was shown in his speech on Climate Change Conference in 2015. Truth is that Russia did not make big contribution to it in last 25 years (yes, there's huge oil and gas industry, but most of it is being exported, so it's a responsibility of consumers to use it in emission-neutral way). Current emissions are more than 25% below 1990 levels - can you say such thing about America, China or India? And this happens not only due to reduced output, but also because of some investment in more environmentally friendly manufacturing (yes, Russia has ecological standards and they are enforced - unfortunately, not fully because of corruption). There exist government-sponsored programmes to invest in green energy (e.g. new manufacturing facilities for solar panels), close the top polluters (like BTsBK) and reduce car emissions. It's not that easy to transform such a big economy and fix all the issues of Soviet planning, so it will take time to change and become as green as e.g. Germany (I doubt it's even possible to start something costly like Energiewende in Russia at this moment).
  - odabaxok 10y ago
    This sounds interesting, do you have sources (about emission levels by country, Russian ecological standards and how are they enforced, etc.)?
    - ivan_gammel 10y ago
      Emissions: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russianfederation.html http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russianfederation.... (note "inadequate" label - this web site rightly says that more could be done in terms of commitments) OECD report on standards: http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/38118149.pdf http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/38118149.pdf See "Key findings" section - it summarizes the current progress and remaining issues with environmental policy. No wonder, most of them are deeply rooted in overall political climate and related to corruption, but, still, there's some progress and majority of ordinary people and in the government is really concerned with ecology and climate change. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: https://www.mnr.gov.ru/english/ https://www.mnr.gov.ru/english/ There are many more sources in Russian, but it's hard to get a coherent view from them and harsh critics means more that people have very good understanding how it should be and push for more to be done, rather than that government ignores environmental issues like in some countries of South-East Asia, for example.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  > anthropocentric You mean anthropogenic, btw.
- niels_olson 10y ago
  Geopolitical influence in high profile forums. Interesting. I've read about it, but hadn't seen it in the wild on my own path. Thanks!
- PeterWhittaker 10y ago
  You are partially correct: I scanned the article initially and wrote an inaccurate summary based on an inaccurate scan. As you point out, there is consensus on the causes, first, excess nutrients from fertilization in the USSR, and second, decreased ventilation in the post-USSR period caused by climate change. As to diverting criticism of Russia: BWA HA HA HA HA! That's funny. Little or nothing could provide greater proof of our not knowing each other. That's pretty funny. Wipes tear from eye.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    As I stated, it was possible that you wrote the comment to divert criticism. I said that because Russia has a giant army of internet trolls who spend all day doing that sort of thing. But I also said it was possible there was another cause, and I see now that is the case. My apologies.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

simplemath 10y ago

>The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it contains spyware. The name of the spyware is: Spyware.Exploit.BRTS.sciencebulletin.org

andrewjf 10y ago
Are these web filter things generally accurate?
- simplemath 10y ago
  False positives are a thing... but just thought it was worth mentioning that it was flagged for me.

shmerl 10y ago

Hydrogen sulfide area is like a death zone in the depth of the Black Sea.

wildeswildes 10y ago

Hydrogen sulfide is in deep of Black See is deadly area. If clean water contamined by h2s2 most of will die about it.