"Decline in global oceanic oxygen content in past 5 decades" Topic

Abstract:

Ocean models predict a decline in the dissolved oxygen inventory of the global ocean of one to seven per cent by the year 2100, caused by a combination of a warming-induced decline in oxygen solubility and reduced ventilation of the deep ocean. It is thought that such a decline in the oceanic oxygen content could affect ocean nutrient cycles and the marine habitat, with potentially detrimental consequences for fisheries and coastal economies. Regional observational data indicate a continuous decrease in oceanic dissolved oxygen concentrations in most regions of the global ocean, with an increase reported in a few limited areas, varying by study. Prior work attempting to resolve variations in dissolved oxygen concentrations at the global scale reported a global oxygen loss of 550 ± 130 teramoles (10^12 mol) per decade between 100 and 1,000 metres depth based on a comparison of data from the 1970s and 1990s. Here we provide a quantitative assessment of the entire ocean oxygen inventory by analysing dissolved oxygen
and supporting data for the complete oceanic water column over the past 50years. We find that the global oceanic oxygen content of 227.4 ± 1.1 petamoles (10^15 mol) has decreased by more than two per cent (4.8 ± 2.1 petamoles) since 1960, with large variations in oxygen loss in different ocean basins and at different depths. We suggest that changes in the upper water column are mostly due to a warming-induced decrease in solubility and biological consumption. Changes in the deeper ocean may have their origin in basin-scale multi-decadal variability, oceanic overturning slow-down and a potential increase in biological consumption.

For a more layperson's take:

link

And your solution is…..?
You're great for "The sky is falling!" but short on solutions.

Didn't catch that I essentially re-posted KTravlos

TMP link

Academics re-inventing the wheel Martin :p

You're great for "The sky is falling!" but short on solutions.

Kinda hard for anyone to propose workable solutions when the current POTUS has stated that this is all a conspiracy orchestrated by the Chinese.

An unworkable solution is to stop burning carbon containing fuels. And why is it up to Martin to provide a solution? What is Winston's solution?

Why do I need to come up with a solution when I am a Mark Steyn type denier?
I see no need to come up with a solution where a problem does not exist.

It's the believers who need to come up with a solution, not the skeptics.

This is one if the reasons I started a poll to remove climate "science" discussion from TMP.
This is after all a wargaming site. Not a policy site.

one Household = one vehicle would be a good place to start.

Bullshyte, altfritz. Implementing that kind of draconian limitation would bring the entire camel into the tent. You really think that the filthy rich will give up their car collections? Of course, they will be able to pay for any exemptions they want. Just like a certain politico-"scientist" crybaby who couldn't become POTUS can pay for his "carbon credits" without losing a wink of sleep.

The peons are the ones who will be hit by "one car per family". Seriously, mom and dad both work, plus kids need fetching from and taking to school, and soccer afterward. One car? Pfft!

The solution is fewer people. A lot fewer people. Let's talk about how we can create a mindset the world over that reduces the population over the next two generations, and then maintains it at that level…………..

Release the Trioxin and all our problems will go away.

There is your solution.

Sounds like we are doomed. Still.

Great discussion going on by the way.

Kinda hard for anyone to propose workable solutions when the current POTUS has stated that this is all a conspiracy orchestrated by the Chinese.

Then it is pointless to post articles like the OP. The greater problem is there are no workable solutions of which I've learned.

And why is it up to Martin to provide a solution?

"Oh, I'm not a security guard. I'm just a bank monitor. I tell you if the bank is being robbed. The bank is being robbed."

This is one if the reasons I started a poll to remove climate "science" discussion from TMP. This is after all a wargaming site.

So no "climate science" on the Science board, or no non-wargaming topics on TMP? I'm OK with the last suggestion.

Better yet, move "climate science" to the religion board where it belong.

Ocean models predict…

are these the same models that predicted no ice at the north pole by 2013?

link

link

Nice sources.

Why do I need to come up with a solution when I am a Mark Steyn type denier?grin…It's the believers who need to come up with a solution, not the skeptics..

You have my condolences.

I see no need to come up with a solution where a problem does not exist.

Do not conflate denier and skeptic. A skeptic is someone who evaluates the facts and then draws a conclusion. A denier is some one who comes to a conclusion despite the facts.

link

And your solution is…..?
You're great for "The sky is falling!" but short on solutions.

It should be obvious that Martin has a solution. He posts academic and scientific articles and papers here so that we can read them and hopefully be better informed about the issue. We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt; oil heat, or solar; wind, water, and nuclear power, or coal fired power plants. We can also choose between statesmen who are science-minded, or those that are science deniers.

"We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt"

False choice there, as long as we get electrical power from burning things…

"We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt"

False choice there, as long as we get electrical power from burning things…

There's a new report by the Grantham institute that concludes that the "business as usual" projection method is getting more and more unsupportable, since the vast majority of countries are ratcheting down their emissions(with only 1 major economy being foreseen as relaxing emission standards in the future #MakeCuyahogaRiverBurnAgain), and renewable are getting cheaper by the day, and in many cases cheaper than fossil fuels – even if you exclude the cost of carbon externalities.

PDF link

Furthermore, as we've seen in the US Coal industry, a loss of 10% of market share can break the back of an industry, and as per the modest assumptions in the above report, renewables (especially solar PV) are poised to steal that market share within 10-20 years.

Although to be fair to the US coal industry, it's currently experiencing a double whammy of losing market share in energy production side AND the price of metallurgical is re-enacting the trajectory of the Bismark after getting torpedoed ever since China as slowed down on steel production.

We will continue to have "business as usual" until it is economically feasible to do otherwise. Even then there will be inertia and pushback.

I would not count on the "vast majority of countries are ratcheting down their emissions" continuing without some major change, and even if they did, any of China, India or the US could pretty much offset if not exceed the efforts of those same countries.

renewables (especially solar PV) are poised to steal that market share within 10-20 years.

and by many estimates, that will already be "too late" and even with coal gone, you still have to solve the other fossil fuel consumption issues.

Feel free to feel happy about that report with questionable assumptions and metrics. I'll continue to believe what I'm seeing right now.

We will continue to have "business as usual" until it is economically feasible to do otherwise. Even then there will be inertia and pushback.

I would not count on the "vast majority of countries are ratcheting down their emissions" continuing without some major change, and even if they did, any of China, India or the US could pretty much offset if not exceed the efforts of those same countries.

renewables (especially solar PV) are poised to steal that market share within 10-20 years.

and by many estimates, that will already be "too late" and even with coal gone, you still have to solve the other fossil fuel consumption issues.

Feel free to feel happy about that report with questionable assumptions and metrics. I'll continue to believe what I'm seeing right now.

We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt; oil heat, or solar; wind, water, and nuclear power, or coal fired power plants. We can also choose between statesmen who are science-minded, or those that are science deniers.

There are a lot of assumptions contained in those choices that I doubt will come to pass. The reality is that the timeline that we keep being told exists and the timeline for sufficient alternate power sources don't seem to line up to support the outcome you envision.

And, though not as obvious as the hypocrites in Hollywood and elsewhere who lecture the great unwashed masses about the evils of global warming and the need to drastically change their lifestyles, all while flying around in a nearly empty private jet to one of a number of mansions they power with other than green energy, I'm guessing that most of the folks here who post about the evils of AGW are not in a solar powered house with wind generated electricity to power the batteries on their electric cars. Those batteries which also are a significant problem for landfills or other disposals.

Feel free to LMK if you are leading the holy life of choices you espouse. I suspect that few if any here or anywhere else are.

I think all these topics are contributing to global warming. :)

Dan

Hey! I'm tryin' to learn something here…

I agree, and that is one of the reasons I have repeatedly suggested that this site would benefit from a re-look at all of the non-gaming boards and some significant cutting – with this and the UM board being the first to go. They are far removed from the purpose of the page, generate discontent and animosity, serve as intake for the DH, but do little that I see to benefit TMP. If Martin and his friends want to discuss these topics, there are scientific sites where they can. If the deniers want to rant about "nothing is happening" there are sites where they can do that as well.

I really don't see the up-side to these two and many other non-gaming boards. Not my call, Bill disagrees despite the evidence to the contrary, and it's his call.

So on we all go…

Lol.

Believe it or not, I vote for a new board. The Global Warming Board. And it must not allow cross-posting to any other board.

Dan

This board generates more hits than some…I suspect it will be around awhile….at least until the second flood.

If that's what you're after, just think of all the new hits if it was called the Global Warming Debate Board! :)

Dan

Feel free to LMK if you are leading the holy life of choices you espouse. I suspect that few if any here or anywhere else are.

The "true believers" seem awfully quiet on this point.

I'm betting they eat meat and use dairy products from cows that fart as well.

Have plastic products in their home and car made from petroleum.

And a whole lot of other stuff that is contributing to our doom. Guess they are as solid on the reality as is the IPCC with their "magic trees" in South America.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Or MAYBE:

It should be obvious that Martin has a solution. He posts academic and scientific articles and papers here so that we can read them and hopefully be better informed about the issue.

They just need more papers to be better informed!

We just found a new continent; but, climate change: we got that nailed down!

I'm going to really be interested about what the latest from CERN provides to the discussion.

So…..

No "true believers" posting about how they are living the life based on what they know.

I'm Shocked. Shocked, I tell you!!

How can folks who know so much and be so certain continue to live in a manner that is so counter to everything they preach here?

Are they just smaller versions of the "Hollywood Hypocrites" or is there some other dynamic afoot?

When you post something germane to the OP, then you might get a response. You didn't, so you won't…

Re Cern: Sorry JJ, the head of the CERN CLOUD project has popped your bubble…

How can folks who know so much and be so certain continue to live in a manner that is so counter to everything they preach here?

Who exactly are you talking about Terrement? None of us here know anything about the private lives of each other. And what do the "Hollywood hypocrites" have to do with whether or not you are part of the solution or part of the problem?

So I'm curious. Do you recycle?

I'm talking about all of the Col. Mustards out there who continually post here about the latest news documenting how bad things are based on science. I know we don't know about their private lives.

Hence my question, Colonel.

With so many continually posting here documenting how bad things are scientifically, and folks posting things like:

He posts academic and scientific articles and papers here so that we can read them and hopefully be better informed about the issue. We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt; oil heat, or solar; wind, water, and nuclear power, or coal fired power plants

I'm just asking how many of the true believers who keep talking about how bad things are actually are choosing like you suggest and are driving Volts, living in a location where they get nothing but green power and are not supportive of the earth destroying animal food sources, as opposed to folks who enjoy posturing to show how smart they are about such an important, earth threatening issue, yet choose the business as usual in their actual life.

If I have to explain why that sort of approach is just like a scaled down version of the Hollywood Hypocrites, there is no point in so doing.

By the way, the EU is bracing for several millions more migrants this year. Think that will help them cut emissions like they promised? Or is reality once again getting in they way of magical thinking?

I'm talking about all of the Col. Mustards out there who continually post here about the latest news documenting how bad things are based on science.

Imagine that. Posting science articles on a Science Board. As opposed to your posts, JJ, which usually have no science content at all.(see above)

Yes based on science

I'm posting about folks who repeatedly posture here on the science board with information that paints a bleak and desperate future and I wonder to what extent they live their lives based on the gospel they preach. When I posed the question, not a single one of the folks who keep beating us over the head with "science" stepped up to the plate to say they proudly live in a place where they get their energy from nuclear, wind or solar power, drive vehicles that are not internal combustion engine powered, and are now vegans having given up the practice of supporting the earth-destroying cow farting pig farting and other animals raised as food for the good of the planet.

If y'all are so concerned that you can prattle off all of this "we're doomed unless we drastically change all of our lives" but act on a smaller scale just like the Hollywood Hypocrites, then folks deserve to know whether the preachers of the gospel according to St Gore to all of the disbelievers and skeptics have any clothes themselves.

When my question draws a response like

When you post something germane to the OP, then you might get a response. You didn't, so you won't…

I think I'm on pretty solid ground to conclude that had Charlie actually taken on the "holy life" of green energy as I described, he'd be the first to loudly announce it just to show me that yeah, he's really committed to what he preaches. But instead? A glib response that completely sidesteps the question about his carbon emitting power sources, transportation, and methane producing food.

as for your other point, if you look, much of the "discussion" above similarly have no science content in them. Which gets me back to my earlier position that there is no point in this board as it does not produce discussion of science related matters.

When I posed the question, not a single one of the folks…….

……chose to engage with you?

……chose to engage with you?

Chose to admit how little they walk the walk. Perfect opportunity to show how committed y'all are to the stuff that you keep posting.

Or that in the end, it's all just words behind which you posture, but lead a life that is much different than the sort that true believers would.

Mandt2 opened the door with his

" He posts academic and scientific articles and papers here so that we can read them and hopefully be better informed about the issue. We can then choose between an Escalade or a Chevy Volt; oil heat, or solar; wind, water, and nuclear power, or coal fired power plants. "

and I was curious as to the choices y'all make based on being better informed.

Or if you are just as phony as the Hollywood Hypocrites on a smaller scale.

You call it "not engaging you." I call it running away from a fair question.

Readers can decide for themselves.

You call it "not engaging you." I call it running away from a fair question.

Post something relevant or interesting and I'll engage.

Post something relevant or interesting and I'll engage.

I did. I think the honesty of the science crowd is both relevant and interesting. I'd bet many others posting here would agree even if you (and all of the others) would rather run and hide and make excuses than admit the truth.

Answer the questions…or do you just talk the talk?

I think we already know. Just like my supposition with charlie12, if he was a true follower of St. Gore, he'd proudly post his claims and pics to show how devoted to the cause he actually is. Or you. Or Mandt2, Or Martin.

The silence is deafening. And very noticeable. At least the non believers are happy to both claim it and live their lives accordingly, even though they get ridiculed for it.

You folks on the other hand…..

Great at posturing and ridicule, but apparently without the courage of your convictions. Leo DiCaprio would be proud of the lot of you. Miniature scaled version of him.

The silence is deafening. And very noticeable.

As is the white noise that you post. Post something relevant and you might get a response. Post ranting nonsense and you'll get nothing.

Sorry, JJ, I just don't have the time nor inclination to play your sophomoric game…

Charlie,

Questioning the authenticity of the science guys is absolutely relevant. You all seem to be loud mouthed hypocrites. Calling you on it is the same as you folks mocking others for denying science.

You and Bowman being dismissive doesn't change the facts that when it comes to living what you preach, there's nothing there.

Bowman and Charlie DiCaprio have both made it clear that they don't reply…"Post ranting nonsense and you'll get nothing."

Which is clearly borne out by this random collection of comments from them here on the science board:

I'm claiming Poe's Law on CC's comment.
Sheesh, too bad you couldn't add the terms "liberal", "socialist", "warmist", and "conspiracy" to make it really awesome.

Lucky for Steven Goddard (doyen of realclimatescience) has the Heartland Institute (which is funded by Exxonmobil and the Koch brothers) to bankroll him. Otherwise, he might have get a real job. Possibly writing pulp scifi or fantasy (lord knows he knows nothing of real science…).

According to that one dubious blog. One that requires me to consider that NASA is in cahoots with the Chinese in fabricating AGW.

This provides serious scientific discourse the same way Alex Jones provides serious political insight.
Please pass the tinfoil hat

More tinfoil hat nonsense. The idea of a vast worldwide conspiracy to push AGW (when you can't even get a handful of researchers to agree on where to go for lunch) is sadly pathetic…

I think Mithmee and GWA should put on their , channel each other and coordinate their conspiratorial nonsense. Try to be consistent.

Well that'll be a relief to all those climate scientists. They can then go back to the other worldwide conspiracy……chemtrails!

I bought stocks in tin foil manufacturers and have made a killing since this thread began. Keep on shovelling!

But wait! There's CHEMTRAILS!!!!! LMAO!!!!
Well, EVERYBODY HAS to be lying. Or else this VAST conspiracy couldn't possibly get off the ground….
RIIIIIGHT…..

Mithmee has definitely entered the fringe…. And gone beyond…

"Yep, it'll all be awesome,
We'll all live in canal strewn little "Venices". How romantic. We can get rid of our polluting cars and all ride gondolas. Like I said, awesome.

Hey wait…….isn't this all just a world wide conspiracy started by the Chinese to destroy the US's rice production?

Plenty of time to mock others with whom they disagree. Not a second they can spare to answer a simple direct question. Not only hypocrites, but (I can't use the "L" word) hypocrites. Claim that "Post ranting nonsense and you'll get nothing." but easy to find volumes of mocking posts which prove that to be clearly untrue.

Martin had a post which discussed that continuing as we are is unsustainable. It seems that none of the preachers of the gospel according to St. Gore believe what they preach.

"Ocean models" says it all. Not facts, just maybes, guesses, perhaps, could be, etc. All this global warming crap is based on models whose parameters are set by those who want a specific outcome. Until you have facts it is ALL BS!

The great unanswered question in all this is: maybe the current planetary conditions are out of balance and the planet is attempting to reach balance. Just because it is this way now doesn't mean it is correct. Plus, ALL these "models" leave out the greatest impacting factor in the solar system, the Sun. That is unless you believe mankind has more impact than the Sun. If so, look up the meaning of hubris.

I'm all for more ocean models, as long as they are all given a fair shot at being on the swimsuit issue.

By the way … I know I'm just one of the little people – a mere lowly pleb surrounded by academics – but am I the only one who finds all these long term doomsday weather projections funny, particularly because they come from the same group of self-important people who still can't tell me with absolute certainly if I'm going to get rain tomorrow or not?

I still haven't found a single one of those geniuses who can explain to me how the greenhouse gases expelled by a handful of natural volcanic eruptions wouldn't throw the accuracy of all their doomsday projections out the window.

Dan
PS. Hmm. Fanatic – someone who will never consider the possibility of being wrong, and who can't seem to change the subject. Does that definition fit the enlightened GW priesthood and their deacons? :)

By the way … I know I'm just one of the little people – a mere lowly pleb surrounded by academics – but am I the only one who finds all these long term doomsday weather projections funny, particularly because they come from the same group of self-important people who still can't tell me with absolute certainly if I'm going to get rain tomorrow or not

Yeah, it's called the law of large numbers. All things being equal, large sample sizes are easier to predict than small since outliers (extreme observations) tend to cancel each other out. Let's make this a baseball example.

We have player Alex with a career batting average of 250 and player Bob with a career BA of 350. While it's possible that there will be games where Alex has More hits than Bob, odds are that after a season Bob will have more games where he out hit Alex.

A related concept is that human being, as a general rule, are horrible at translating odds into outcomes. We intuitively treat 80%+ as Sure things, but 80 percent odds means failure 2 out of 10 attempts (or if Bowman is rolling command checks while playing Hail Caesar, I hear he barely passes ;-). )

As for volcano, they are accounted for, but it's marginal compared to human activity. There a whole section dedicated to it in the IPCC.

The main problem with discussions like this is that we mere mortals, in our hubris, refuse to accept the Truth as revealed by those scientists who have sworn mighty oaths to speak nothing but the Truth. They are not the least interested in things like peer pressure, grants etc.
Their oaths, sworn before a mighty God of Truth, mean that everything they say is to be swallowed despite any misgivings we may have.
Wait. What's that you say? There are no such oaths? Scientists are human?

Sarcasm aside, returning to my first post on this topic….
What's your solution?
If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Winston,

Didn't you know? The solution is so simple, I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. :)

The solution is to force down the closing of all the plants in the only countries that were doing something to help the environment, and then have a ton of other plants spring up in countries that have no interest in doing anything for the environment.

And then, aside from losing jobs to those countries, and losing any manufacturing base of our own, we then get to pay those exact same countries big incentives to finally do something about the environment for once (actually, all we'll get from them is a regular supply of fabricated reports … so they can get more of our money). It's ok. We're not overdrawn. We still have plenty of checks left.

How can you NOT understand it now?

Dan
PS. You are right. They bring the hypothetical doomsday problems to the table, but they have no long term solutions at all for them that don't involve our national and economic suicide in the short term.

Martin, the question is still before you like it is for Charlie DiCaprio and Bowman and Mandt2.

I'm assuming that as convinced as you are by the science that by now, you are driving a Prius or the equivalent, living in a totally green powered home and have become a vegan so that you are not supporting the businesses that include farting animals.

If not, one wonders why not. The others have either run away (Mandt2) or are giving dishonest dismissals as shown by their posts I quoted.

Haven't heard from you one way or the other. How convinced are you in what you preach? Enough to live the life that is dictated by the threat to the globe and mankind by global warming?

You are right. They bring the hypothetical doomsday problems to the table, but they have no long term solutions at all for them that don't involve our national and economic suicide in the short term.

Nor, apparently, are they willing to make the needed changes in their own lives.

If not, one wonders why not. The others have either run away (Mandt2) or are giving dishonest dismissals as shown by their posts I quoted.

Run away? You're funny. Nah. I've been up on the roof polishing my solar panels.

So this thread has been high-jacked. No longer are we talking about the science of climate change. Instead Terrement has taken to ridiculing those who he does not agree with. Again.

I'm just asking how many of the true believers who keep talking about how bad things are actually are choosing like you suggest and are driving Volts, living in a location where they get nothing but green power and are not supportive of the earth destroying animal food sources, as opposed to folks who enjoy posturing to show how smart they are about such an important, earth threatening issue, yet choose the business as usual in their actual life.

So, who here can you definitively say fits this description? Specifically. Or, are you just making broad assumptions about us based on a stereotype of your own fabrication?

So, you never answered my question. Do you recycle? It's okay if you do. I won't think any less of you.

But getting back to your quote above. You offer damned good goals for us all to work towards. Golly, I sure hope Winston reads it.