3 ms·

> Warmer waters hold less oxygen. This is fundamental, scientific fact.. Their own characterization is more nuanced than that. The study says that solubility c

> Warmer waters hold less oxygen. This is fundamental, scientific fact.. Their own characterization is more nuanced than that. The study says that solubility changes account for about 15% (10-30%) [their % and range] of the oxygen change measured. They mention that most of the oxygen loss is at deep levels which are not affected by solubility, though there may be other second order effects from warming. In the section 3.1 conclusion they also mention the big gaps in models vs observed data, and wonder what they're missing. The study is fine and full of expected caveats. The reporting is lame.

endorphone 7y ago
"Their own characterization is more nuanced than that." Of course it's more nuanced. I'm speaking directly to their conclusions relative to global warming, clearly, and your very firm put-down of it, though you seem to be backtracking now. "The study is fine and full of expected caveats. The reporting is bad." How is the reporting bad? Why? Because it doesn't take a contrarian approach because the science of a massive, very complex system can't be 100%? This is exactly the nonsense every global warming denialist has plied for year ("They're only 99.99% sure, so you should believe my pet theory about like sun spots or something"). It deserves to be stomped out on sight and not tolerated as if it's on some equal footing. Your post that I replied to has you firmly and with complete conviction wiping away all of it but industrial and farm run off, implying that they just don't know how to measure, etc. It's pretty hard to try to position yourself in the middle ground after that.
- simonsarris 7y ago
  The reporting is bad because: 1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests 2. The article leads with 700 ocean sites suffering from low oxygen, up from 45 in 1960, which is not because of oxygen solubility but because of eutrophication. The paper specificually discusses eutrophication here, and goes on to mention "but through nutrient and organic loading management about 70 (10%) of them can now be classified as recovering." (see section 2.5 intro) But that's not shitty doom-saying so it goes unsaid that it's eutrophication and that it's getting better and can be made better independent of warming.
  - endorphone 7y ago
    "1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests" Does "running out" to you mean hitting 0%? In real-world use it means reduces to the point where it has a negative effect on the system, which is reportedly happening. You and a few others have taken this tact that you just disagree with the claimed alarmism of the article (and its completely accurate title) -- read the executive summary. It's pretty "alarmist" too. Again you're back to run-off, which is weird -- the science has long targeted it, and regulations and behaviors have changed dramatically to ease it, to good effect. Things as little as most laundry detergent not having phosphor anymore. Yeah, they were "alarmist" about that, solutions were found, and the problem has improved in a lot of the world. But now global warming is coming and it is a massive external force that you can't simply change a laundry detergent around. The report isn't even saying "oh no, get rid of your pick-up", it's simply saying "this is happening". Understanding and planning, if that's the best we can do, is pretty valuable.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Of course they're more nuanced than your blanket dismissal too. For example "As the ocean warms from the surface, stratification is expected to increase, with a tendency for a slowing down of the ocean circulation. A slowed down circulation is expected to account for up to 50% of observed deoxygenation in the upper 1000m, and for up to 98% in the deep ocean (>1000m)." Hardly all farming runoff then. In fact that looks like the vast majority is heating related as the article notes. Yet of course we need to mitigate runoff too, given the enormous dead patch in the Gulf of Mexico.

endorphone 7y ago

"Their own characterization is more nuanced than that." Of course it's more nuanced. I'm speaking directly to their conclusions relative to global warming, clearly, and your very firm put-down of it, though you seem to be backtracking now. "The study is fine and full of expected caveats. The reporting is bad." How is the reporting bad? Why? Because it doesn't take a contrarian approach because the science of a massive, very complex system can't be 100%? This is exactly the nonsense every global warming denialist has plied for year ("They're only 99.99% sure, so you should believe my pet theory about like sun spots or something"). It deserves to be stomped out on sight and not tolerated as if it's on some equal footing. Your post that I replied to has you firmly and with complete conviction wiping away all of it but industrial and farm run off, implying that they just don't know how to measure, etc. It's pretty hard to try to position yourself in the middle ground after that.

simonsarris 7y ago
The reporting is bad because: 1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests 2. The article leads with 700 ocean sites suffering from low oxygen, up from 45 in 1960, which is not because of oxygen solubility but because of eutrophication. The paper specificually discusses eutrophication here, and goes on to mention "but through nutrient and organic loading management about 70 (10%) of them can now be classified as recovering." (see section 2.5 intro) But that's not shitty doom-saying so it goes unsaid that it's eutrophication and that it's getting better and can be made better independent of warming.
- endorphone 7y ago
  "1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests" Does "running out" to you mean hitting 0%? In real-world use it means reduces to the point where it has a negative effect on the system, which is reportedly happening. You and a few others have taken this tact that you just disagree with the claimed alarmism of the article (and its completely accurate title) -- read the executive summary. It's pretty "alarmist" too. Again you're back to run-off, which is weird -- the science has long targeted it, and regulations and behaviors have changed dramatically to ease it, to good effect. Things as little as most laundry detergent not having phosphor anymore. Yeah, they were "alarmist" about that, solutions were found, and the problem has improved in a lot of the world. But now global warming is coming and it is a massive external force that you can't simply change a laundry detergent around. The report isn't even saying "oh no, get rid of your pick-up", it's simply saying "this is happening". Understanding and planning, if that's the best we can do, is pretty valuable.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Of course they're more nuanced than your blanket dismissal too. For example "As the ocean warms from the surface, stratification is expected to increase, with a tendency for a slowing down of the ocean circulation. A slowed down circulation is expected to account for up to 50% of observed deoxygenation in the upper 1000m, and for up to 98% in the deep ocean (>1000m)." Hardly all farming runoff then. In fact that looks like the vast majority is heating related as the article notes. Yet of course we need to mitigate runoff too, given the enormous dead patch in the Gulf of Mexico.