Scientists Worried About Expanding Low-Oxygen Zones in Oceans
Scientists warn that the delicate food chains and complicated ecosystems of the oceans could be disrupted by expanding underwater zones that are low in oxygen, a phenomenon observed in particular off the U.S.´s northwest coast.
Dead zones off the coasts of Washington State and Oregon have resulted in crab carcasses piling up on the ocean floor and deaths of sea stars and sea anemones. In their place are potentially poisonous bacteria colonies that thrive in such zones.
"The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking," said oceanographer Gregory Johnson. The oceans have steadily been losing oxygen for decades, consistent with the predictions of current climate-change models.
the dinosaurs died out via an asteroid, not global warming (human driven or otherwise) or other human invention (we weren´t around).
@h.w hutchins
"That is a bit strange warmer water -can- hold more oxygen than cold. "
thats more than stranges it´s backwards.
and moreover as CO2 and methane level in the atmospheric rise oxygen levels drop (slightly), and the amount of oxygen availible to the ocean is proportional the amount in the atmosphere, BUT the amount of oxygen that water can actually hold is relative to its temperature.
@Tetsuru Uzuki
ocean temperature HAVE kept rising so given the above, yes, global warming is at very least partly responsible.
Quote: Others were slightly more definitive, quicker to link the lower oxygen levels to global warming rather than to such weather phenomena as El Nino or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a shift in the weather that occurs every 20 to 30 years in the northern oceans.
Of course they were quick to blame it on global warming, because that is what they get paid to research. Why on Earth would they even think it has anything to do with a shift that has been occurring EVERY 20 to 30 years.
@Ben, you forgot to mention about that shift, it is actually a very important part of the article to give a wider view about the subject and its causes. All you summed up was doom and gloom of global warming. How convenient is that? I´m sure it was an oversight and had nothing to do with the opinionated thoughts you have on the subject, right?
Except for the very last sentence, he simply reworded four of the first five paragraphs. Even his headline is a simple reword, which I might add is representative of what was summarized, i.e. "doom and gloom." That´s not biased reporting.
Just to add to what Caution2 said, the very first paragraph of the source article mentions climate change. I delved a bit deeper into the article to find something specific to say about the possibility of climate change being the culprit in ocean de-oxygenation.
I think it´s possible that you are so determined to debunk anthropogenic global warming that you´ve stopped listening to anything that says there´s something to it.
Ocean temperatures have not signifigantly increased, while global SEA ICE has increased. Call up the university of Ohio, they track it by satelite. I´m pretty sure they have a website up with the data too.
So we still need to deal with these problems. Are we dealing with them? I think we are dealing with it, but not trying to fix it. People will still use vehicles that easily pollute even when sitting with their engine off. People will still fertilize/pesticide their crops, their gardens, & their lawns. People will still keep littering with plastics.
I wish the article talked about the gulf of mexico because that is about to be devoid of life which is some serious business. Not to say any of this is not. I guess with the west coast we still have a chance to do something about it, but how are we going to stop people from doing what I have already spoken about?
"Ocean temperatures have not signifigantly increased"
any constant increase is signifigant.
@vhan
"while global SEA ICE has increased"
is some parts yes but the sea ice; A) doesn´t offset the glacier melt even now in a cold of global warming and B) is largely related to lower LAND temperature, because again ocean temperature ARE increasing.
chemicals can definately be cauing it it but ANYONE that says global warming isn´t at least contributing to the cause, if not being the cause itself is ignorant, and more over i already explicity detailed why.
"then all the plastic that is in the ocean is from climate change as well, which is BS.
no, thats from irresponsible disposal... not climate change, but yes its a huamn action; it didn´t form their naturally.
In that case, the temperature has constantly went down with a net of -0.01 degrees over the last 15 years. Constantly declining temperatures over the last 15 years. Yep. Check the data. Over the last 60 years the net increase is only 0.02 increase.
Yep. Definately man made global warming, better tax everybody, and funnel the money to a global bank, who also own all the companies that do actually pollute the oceans and cause these dead zones. Then use the money to fund a new global government. Save the world from all of us horrible carbon breathers.
I find it hard to credit your simplistic representation of global sea temperatures. I´ve heard equally valid points saying that the atmospheric warming is causing a slowing of the ocean currents, in turn the water at the higher latitudes is cooling while the equatorial water is warming. Taken at a rather deceptive average, the net effect may be cooling, but it´s hardly an accurate description of what´s actually happening. Take a point in the ocean like just off Cairns on the Great Barrier Reef. There the water is warming and the corral is bleached and dying as a result.
And where´d you get the garbage about a global bank. Why would you even give a shit about a ´new global bank´ when we´ve got an oligopoly already in place siphoning off every cent.
"In that case, the temperature has constantly went down with a net of -0.01 degrees over the last 15 years. Constantly declining temperatures over the last 15 years. Yep. Check the data. Over the last 60 years the net increase is only 0.02 increase."
and btw, its (global average) increased 0.2C in the last 30 years, NOT 0.02C... so you were only off by a factor of 10 on the increase and off by a factor of 2 on duration between start and end of the measurements... and its also increase 0.8C in the last 130 years... and this IS counting the recent cooling from the last 2.5 years.
whether your talking about sea average (which is the what i was talking about) or global average, you´re wrong, because A) global average have only fallen for 2 and half years (and this last decade was also the warmest decade despite having that 2.5 year long cooling effect... and B) sea temperatures HAVEN´T fallen, but rather continued increasing even after the decrease in global warming started and C) (as if it was needed) 2009 was the hottest year on record for south of the equator after 2005 and then after cluster of years (1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007)
up till 2007 the average was 0.7C above the 1960-1990 average... nice selective facts.
and moreover its already been determined by at least 22 seperate computer model that we are indeed at least the majority cause of the increase in sea surface temperature, to the effect to AT LEAST 67%, that litterally means we have already been to be the cause of 2/3´s of the temperature increase in the ocean; and FYI the reference peroid for this study was 1903-2005.
also in 2007 a new study in the artic was started with 370 scientists, and not surprisingly they found that the artic ice is melting faster than has been expected (by climate models; making current models a conservative estimate of the future outlook).
and moreover this increase in ice melt also correlates with their prediction that storms would increase as the ocean temperature continue to rise, and they have, we had a massive snowfall effect in much of north america (which global warming predicts extreme weather variation, ironically missing canada for the most part.
but like most people your probably judging global warming from your LOCAL (or regional) position´s temperature, rather than the planet as whole
@vhan
your comment doesn´t make sense... i never mentioned weather in the previous two comments... nor did i make the arguement you refer to... did you intend that message for someone else?
Is people not actually understading how bad a simple .2C increase is. From a human perspective, .2C is a dont care. But from a plant, animal or insect perspective, that´s quite a problem.
For a polar bear, .2C means it takes 1 week more to gain access to it´s food source, and 1 week shorter at the end.
This is a lot to the ecosystem, but not the human with its air conditioner of course.
not to mention that that 0.2C is above the 1960-1990 average (which is signifigantly higher than than the 1880 average, which we are still 0.8C higher than; if not for the lowering average over the last 2.5 years it would be 1.3-1.4C higher) is signifigantly greater than 0.2C nearer to the poles.
"ANYONE that says global warming isn´t at least contributing to the cause, if not being the cause itself is ignorant"
My statement was to this. No one is denying that the weather makes pollution worse by spreading it rather than leaving it concentrated in one spot.
The problem isn´t GW as you put it but the pollution plan & simple.
If plants & animals can´t handle the climate change then they will die out like the plants & animals of the past who lived in such different temperatures of today´s world. The climate has been very nice to us for a really long time & now that it´s changing & we are partly to blame (we are not helping the problem) things will change along with it. Most of life that existed on this planet is extinct from natural causes. If we contribute to a more chaotic weather from greed, over-consumption & all the other negative things & don´t learn from it, then we will be extinct too, such is life.
Climate Change Skeptic: You´re just trying to tax me.
You: We human beings are putting more C02 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
CCS: Why do you like taxes so much?
You: If we overheat the planet, we´ll disrupt many of the ecosystems we´re dependent on. Agriculture may be severely disrupted, leading to food shortages.
CCS: Look -- I don´t think you understand how much I f#$king HATE taxes. Seriously.
You: Right now, cold water plunging deep into the oceans at several key locations keeps the deep oceans oxygenated. If those waters are warmed too much, the oceans will become stagnant. Massive die-offs in the oceans depths could create noxious poisons.
CCS: I´m just gonna ... OK, look. Not me. But I swear to f**king God, dude, somebody like me will get a damn gun and just go blowing people away at a government building. Or maybe fly a plane into one.
You: I´m telling you this so that you can join in the effort to keep these things from happening. We have a unique opportunity to possibly avert significant human suffering and natural disruption. We still have time to make it better, but time is running out.
CCS: You´re just not going to budge on this tax thing, are you? I hate you!
It´s far more likely that the "crap" we´ve allowed into our oceans has more to do with this issue than "Global Warming." Next they´ll say they have proof this happened before the last ice age... :-P After all, ... we´ve only got two and a half years before the end of the world, right??? :-P
It doesn´t matter how many times you tell them, or how many times science proves them wrong. Or how many times we catch the U.N. flat out lying about it to try and push through taxes. Global warming alarmists will always want to blame carbon, one of the building blocks of life, instead of dangerous pollutants for eco-disasters. They act like its a bad thing we don´t want to fall for their scam and give money to crooks for a non-issue. I would pay taxes to combat REAL eco problems. Just not to finance global government and the destruction of industry.
Real Eco Disasters: Transplanted Species Chemical Runoff Genetically Modified Crops Depleted Uranium saturation Water Flourination Genetically altered species Deforestation Smog Weather Modification Nuclear Fallout Overfishing Overhunting Light Pollution Broadcast Radiation Non degradable plastics
Not an Eco-Disaster Carbon Dioxide Temperature Change
The Earth has been both much hotter and much colder then it is now, and flipflopped through history. 1000 year old ports are now 3 miles inland in some parts of the world. Climate change happens. We´re not causing it.
Whoever thinks that taxes will stop the climate change problem are naive & simple minded.
This goes doubly for carbon credits or any other scheme that would force people to pay because they pollute.
Unless that is the money paid out goes directly to what pollution the person or business created. Taxes is an option put forth to discourage pollution & doesn´t stop it, & because of this fact shouldn´t be implemented. Citizens will feel the most harm from this, all the while business who contribute more pollution will slide by through negating what they owe for polluting through their prices. As well smart business people will find loop holes as they currently do.
@Ben your last post was more about a debate from someone who doesn´t want to pay taxes to someone who is trying to inform the other about climate change. You´re not that simplistic minded, yet you´re that biased. Nice spin.
