GW keeps on giving.

>>For years, scientists have been ringing alarm bells over the dire state of the world’s oceans, which are becoming warmer, more acidic, and increasingly filled with plastic. Now, a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature has revealed the alarming scope of yet another affliction: oceans are losing oxygen, quickly.

The report identifies two main causes of ocean deoxygenation. The first is climate change. Warmer waters hold less oxygen, as a general rule, and increasing temperatures also interfere with the ocean’s ability to properly distribute its oxygen concentrations. Typically, oxygen-rich waters at the surface of the ocean mix with deeper layers that are not as abundant in oxygen; but warm waters that hold less oxygen are more buoyant, leading to the stratification of the water column.

Another driver of deoxygenation is nutrient pollution, which seeps into the oceans in the form of fertilizer, sewage and animal waste from the meat industry. Excess nutrients can stimulate an overgrowth of algae, which sucks oxygen out of the water as it decomposes.

The impacts of oxygen-depleted waters are far-reaching. According to the IUCN, species like tuna, marlin and sharks are particularly susceptible because they are large and have high energy demands; when oxygen in their habitats is reduced, these animals are driven to shallow waters, where they become vulnerable to overfishing. Deoxygenation also allows certain species to thrive at the expense of many other marine mammals, throwing ocean ecosystems off balance. Jellyfish, for instance, need little oxygen to survive, and their populations are booming—which in turn disrupts human industries and harms fish.

What’s more, oxygen losses threaten to disrupt fundamental processes like the cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous—elements that are essential to life on Earth. “We lower these oxygen levels at our peril,” Laffoley tells Pierre-Louis.<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/worlds-oceans-are-being-starved-oxygen-180973725/

The news is not surprising. People have been pointing to this for decades.
It is however very bad news.

roughbarked said:

The news is not surprising. People have been pointing to this for decades.
It is however very bad news.

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

The news is not surprising. People have been pointing to this for decades.
It is however very bad news.

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

The news is not surprising. People have been pointing to this for decades.
It is however very bad news.

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

Is this a global drop or localized dropouts ?

Does it occur at all depths ?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

The news is not surprising. People have been pointing to this for decades.
It is however very bad news.

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

It was NOT inevitable and nor it it “is all”, but a very serious development due to global warming with wide ranging consequences for marine life.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

It was NOT inevitable and nor it it “is all”, but a very serious development due to global warming with wide ranging consequences for marine life.

There were people suggesting that global warming was leading to this inevitability. Recent discoveries don’t just occur the day they are written up and submitted for peer review.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

It was NOT inevitable and nor it it “is all”, but a very serious development due to global warming with wide ranging consequences for marine life.

No one can change the past that includes records.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Not the oxygen drop in the open oceans, this is a recent discovery with serious far reaching consequence.

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

Is this a global drop or localized dropouts ?

Does it occur at all depths ?

How do you localise an ocean? No it is a surface phenomenon, but zoo plankton (that most ocean life depends) need to move up and down to feed on phytoplankton at night and retreat to the depths to avoid predation.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

It was NOT inevitable and nor it it “is all”, but a very serious development due to global warming with wide ranging consequences for marine life.

There were people suggesting that global warming was leading to this inevitability. Recent discoveries don’t just occur the day they are written up and submitted for peer review.

You are confusing the above article with inshore areas where contaminants like excess fertilizers and algal blooms have sucked the oxygen from the water leaving a dead zone.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

It was inevitable. It simply hadn’t been actually recorded, is all.

Is this a global drop or localized dropouts ?

Does it occur at all depths ?

How do you localise an ocean? No it is a surface phenomenon, but zoo plankton (that most ocean life depends) need to move up and down to feed on phytoplankton at night and retreat to the depths to avoid predation.

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is this a global drop or localized dropouts ?

Does it occur at all depths ?

How do you localise an ocean? No it is a surface phenomenon, but zoo plankton (that most ocean life depends) need to move up and down to feed on phytoplankton at night and retreat to the depths to avoid predation.

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

How do you localise an ocean? No it is a surface phenomenon, but zoo plankton (that most ocean life depends) need to move up and down to feed on phytoplankton at night and retreat to the depths to avoid predation.

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

>>>And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

He knows more about oceans than me.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

>>>And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

He knows more about oceans than me.

You sound like a typical denier. Ignore the science and just go on hearsay.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

You are talking on massive scales and expect simple answers. What is the matter with you? Just read the bloody articles and then you might learn something.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

How do you localise an ocean? No it is a surface phenomenon, but zoo plankton (that most ocean life depends) need to move up and down to feed on phytoplankton at night and retreat to the depths to avoid predation.

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

well the links supplied were to answer your question How do you localise an ocean?

yes, they have nothing to do with the lack of oxygen in surface waters even though surface water are mentioned, lack of surface oxygen wasn’t, this is because they are not taking about surface oxygen, I hope that helps.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

>>>And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

He knows more about oceans than me.

You sound like a typical denier. Ignore the science and just go on hearsay.

No Im not a diner

No I dont ignore science

No I dont go on hearsay

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

You asked How do you localise an ocean?

The articles posted answered the first part.

Im looking for an answer to the second question.

You are talking on massive scales and expect simple answers. What is the matter with you? Just read the bloody articles and then you might learn something.

Massive scales include global observation and localized observation

Nothing is the matter with me.

I read the articles.

I did learn new things.

Thank you.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Circulation, convention, currents, Wind, waves, storms that suck water from whole bays, fluid dynamics, its not ot my area, ask Moll

https://ocean.si.edu/planet-ocean/tides-currents/currents-waves-and-tides-ocean-motion

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/691-ocean-motion

Although the links you supplied are interesting reading, they make no mention of the lack of oxygen in surface waters, so don’t know why you supplied them. And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

well the links supplied were to answer your question How do you localise an ocean?

yes, they have nothing to do with the lack of oxygen in surface waters even though surface water are mentioned, lack of surface oxygen wasn’t, this is because they are not taking about surface oxygen, I hope that helps.

What’s the f’ing matter with you? Why do you insist on being so bloody stupid. I post a bit of science for you to read and hopefully learn something, but no you ask stupid questions expecting detailed answered. Might be best that you don’t read my posts because I an finding you so damn irritating.

So’s the world’s atmosphere.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>And why you should think moll would know more than the scientist who have been ACTUALLY studied the situation is completely beyond me.

He knows more about oceans than me.

You sound like a typical denier. Ignore the science and just go on hearsay.

No Im not a diner

No I dont ignore science

No I dont go on hearsay

Well stop posting like you do, and I said you were behaving like a denier, not a diner.

mollwollfumble said:

So’s the world’s atmosphere.

True, mostly by armchair experts.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

So’s the world’s atmosphere.

True, mostly by armchair experts.

That would be you.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

So’s the world’s atmosphere.

True, mostly by armchair experts.

That would be you.

Look you dumb denier, I ONLY reproduce scientifically articles, they are NOT my opinion. Now if you can’t distinguish the difference then don’t read my posts as you will be continually disappointed.

Up to your old tricks PM I see

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

True, mostly by armchair experts.

That would be you.

Look you dumb denier, I ONLY reproduce scientifically articles, they are NOT my opinion. Now if you can’t distinguish the difference then don’t read my posts as you will be continually disappointed.

You fall back to being a troll when something bothers you.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That would be you.

Look you dumb denier, I ONLY reproduce scientifically articles, they are NOT my opinion. Now if you can’t distinguish the difference then don’t read my posts as you will be continually disappointed.

You fall back to being a troll when something bothers you.

I asked two questions, they were only questions, that I could have kept to myself.

The-Spectator said:

Up to your old tricks PM I see

If I had my way I would lock people up permanently, so you cannot do further damage to humanity and the planet.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That would be you.

Look you dumb denier, I ONLY reproduce scientifically articles, they are NOT my opinion. Now if you can’t distinguish the difference then don’t read my posts as you will be continually disappointed.

You fall back to being a troll when something bothers you.

Yes I’m a troll for posting scientific articles. Sums you up well!

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

Up to your old tricks PM I see

If I had my way I would lock people up permanently, so you cannot do further damage to humanity and the planet.

Laughing all the way to the bank with my coal mine shares baby

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Look you dumb denier, I ONLY reproduce scientifically articles, they are NOT my opinion. Now if you can’t distinguish the difference then don’t read my posts as you will be continually disappointed.

You fall back to being a troll when something bothers you.

I asked two questions, they were only questions, that I could have kept to myself.

It’s a pity you don’t read the article and then use your brain.

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

Up to your old tricks PM I see

If I had my way I would lock people up permanently, so you cannot do further damage to humanity and the planet.

Laughing all the way to the bank with my coal mine shares baby

Shove you coal PM

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

Up to your old tricks PM I see

If I had my way I would lock people up permanently, so you cannot do further damage to humanity and the planet.

Laughing all the way to the bank with my coal mine shares baby

I have no doubt about it. You are a psychopath with no compassion or empathy for anyone or anything, except yourself.

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

If I had my way I would lock people up permanently, so you cannot do further damage to humanity and the planet.

Laughing all the way to the bank with my coal mine shares baby

I have no doubt about it. You are a psychopath with no compassion or empathy for anyone or anything, except yourself.

I’m out of that sort of work too risk I even sold my sold my panel van with the blacked out windows

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

Laughing all the way to the bank with my coal mine shares baby

I have no doubt about it. You are a psychopath with no compassion or empathy for anyone or anything, except yourself.

I’m out of that sort of work too risk I even sold my sold my panel van with the blacked out windows

You are far more dangerous than a local serial killer Observer, your killing field is the whole planet. You and people like you are the lowest of the low and don’t deserve to live with other life forms.

PermeateFree said:

The-Spectator said:

PermeateFree said:

I have no doubt about it. You are a psychopath with no compassion or empathy for anyone or anything, except yourself.

I’m out of that sort of work too risk I even sold my sold my panel van with the blacked out windows

You are far more dangerous than a local serial killer Observer, your killing field is the whole planet. You and people like you are the lowest of the low and don’t deserve to live with other life forms.

You’ll be begging for scraps from my table soon enough