World's Oceans Are Losing Oxygen at an Alarming Rate

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Blue Shift

Even if this is a waystation to an afterlife it should at least be somewhat tolerable and comfortable.

That kind of thinking almost makes me a Gnostic Christian. The Gnostics wrote that Jesus sometimes said that this world was a kind of simulation (!) created by a demiurge named Saklas (or Yadalbaoth), and not a real creation of the real superpowerful and unknowable Creator Being, as many people are led to believe. That's why life is filled with pain and torment, and our representations of God almost always deteriorate into paradoxes and nullification. And it was Jesus's attitude that even while that might be the case, we're pretty much stuck in this craphole the rest of our lives, so rather than treat each other like terribly, we should be kind and understanding to each other. Why make things worse than they already are by hating each other and being selfish? If he was right (who knows?), it's definitely something worth considering.

Oh who am I kidding?
Ahahaha we're screwed.
Doooom Approaches!!! Lol

We hoped for the best, and got it. Unfortunately, the best sucked.

We just need an aquarium aerator pump. On a large scale.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

It may be how I took your message but somehow you give the impression that you think, desalination plants desalinate the water for fun.

... what? Seriously got no idea what you mean or how you took my post in that manner.

The desalinated water is pumped inland where it is needed, not in a circle back into the ocean. Then after it is used and introduced back into nature, that water soaks to the ground or evaporates and rains down somewhere else, like it has for eons.

So what you're saying... is that brackish water doesnt exist in the ocean where a fresh water river or lake empty? Am I correct in that assessment?

There are freshwater rivers everywhere on earth that end up in the ocean. Desalination plants are like a drop of water on a hot stone, if you are concerned about missing salt in the oceans.

Yeah, never once said I was concerned about salt level drops in the ocean, I was asking for clarification on the appropriate term. And if I was correct in my understanding of what said term meant.

But, thanks for trying none the less

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Water is one third oxygen; without it, the hydrogen turns into gaseous state and expands in volume. The oceans would evaporate and bleed into space. As oxygen disappears from the oceans' water, the hydrogen component becomes an unbound free gas..

I think the scientists need to be a little more specific with their claims.

The H2O in the oceans can never exceed the 1 Oxygen per 2 Hydrogen molecules and if the Oxygen molecules were to disappear, well, (see above).

However there are other sources of Oxygen in the oceans being passed through the water from photosynthesis and other production methods and it is these that are falling short..

A reduction of Kelp, Phyto Plankton, Coral die-offs, etc..., due to a mixture of pollution, deforestation (yes the oceans can be de-forested too), and warming are reducing the number of Oxygen giving life in the oceans.

The Oceans themselves are not losing Oxygen.. That simply is not possible without losing the oceans themselves, so in a sense, the poster you are answering to is correct.

As for global warming being the sole reason, that is just absurd..!!

As I stated, it's a great many factors involved. Global warming/Cooling are a natural cycle as we swing to and from interglacial / glacial periods..

We are still technically in an ice age (an interglacial period where the glaciers recede as the globe warms up for a few tens of thousand years), which is something a lot of so called climate scientists neglect to mention for fear of harming the climate change agenda.

While humans do play a role in the current rate of warming, the cycle its self is natural..

originally posted by: Ironclad1964
The Oceans themselves are not losing Oxygen.. That simply is not possible without losing the oceans themselves, so in a sense, the poster you are answering to is correct.

The oceans are not just pure water, in the same way an ocean can have a reduction in fish they can have a reduction in dissolved hydrogen.

As for global warming being the sole reason, that is just absurd..!!

They do not say global warming is the sole reason, they say it's one of the reasons.

Did you read the report?

They aren't "just" trying to scare us, they are going to be making Trillions of dollars in carbon taxing us. You can believe whatever fantastic story that Hollywood has created by them, but the climate isn't doing anything more than it has ever done before. History's weather has been good, and it has been so bad that the entire planet froze...but it didn't happen from cow farts nor car exhaust then, and it's not happening because of that now. Times change, the climate changes, but I shouldn't have to give my money to some greedy politician over some BS story. 500 reputable scientists signed a document recently and sent it to the UN and all 500 scientists said that it was nothing but a way for Democrats to get more money. While everyone is out here nerding it up and comparing who's climate change d*ck is bigger...the Democrats and Republican's are going to be running away with yours and my money.

a reply to: Ironclad1964

Actually, I'd say water is 1/8th hydrogen and 7/8ths oxygen.

That's because the atomic mass of Oxygen is 16 times greater than Hydrogen's mass.

Hehehe

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

That isn't rational though.

Just because the elitists cried wolf to tax everyone - doesn't automatically mean that our pollution is negligible.

Plus, their "global warming" schtick is irrelevant when it comes to whether the oceans are losing oxygen content.

Either the oceans are polluted and deteriorating OR they are just fine.

Why that is happening is speculative at best. To each his own theory.

I personally believe that the corporations that profited billions by dumping waste in the ocean should have to pay the cleanup fees, taxing us the victims is just wrong.

The elites are afraid of us making them pay for this because it'll clean them out completely, cleaning this up will cost trillions $.

They are terrified we'll make them clean up their own mess. They are used to having butlers, maids, chefs, etc. Very spoiled conniving ppl we are dealing with here.

But as I see it, the oceans are polluted and it's causing problems. That's obvious.

We will all pay dearly if we don't do something to reverse it. Our gracious and environmentally conscious overlords will happily foot the bill since they are so concerned and because most fortunes were made by polluting.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The ocean is most of the world and there's so much of it that we know more about space than the ocean. We haven't even traversed a great deal of it. How can they tell us about this crisis, when they don't even have enough information to work with? Also, if you want to get into semantics, they have robbed us time and time and time again. They do it like a well oiled machine and have for generations. That's why they are where they are, and we're down here living the more honest, humble life...because they are able to outwit the part of the population that let's them do it. They will lie to get money, whereas many of us won't stoop to that level. The stupid, gullible part of the population is what allows them to rob us. Money, will not fix Climate. So why do they need it so desperately? Do you really think that fighting the climate will do anything? China is on the UN climate change bandwagon, and they are protected by their treaties. They pump out more CO2 than anyone.

This BS that "we're gonna die...unless you give us your money" crap is just what Warner Von Braun said would be coming our way many years ago just before he died. Newsflash, he said it was a scare tactic just like terrorism, asteroid scares and the last card to drop was a mock alien invasion, and the last one is the ONLY one that hasn't happened yet. So yeah...as history is the best predictor of future events...they're blowing smoke up our a$$e's again. As for the earth...she handled herself well for billions of years before we were even a thing....through hurricanes, droughts, planetary bombardments, nuclear poisoning, and ice ages and heat spells and she's still here. Again, our cow farts and combustible pipes do nothing to her. You tree hugger's can sleep easy, knowing all of this logic.

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Very well. Explain how the Ocean loosing Oxygen doesn't change the chemical make up of the Oceans?

deleted on checking source

originally posted by: Ironclad1964

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Water is one third oxygen; without it, the hydrogen turns into gaseous state and expands in volume. The oceans would evaporate and bleed into space. As oxygen disappears from the oceans' water, the hydrogen component becomes an unbound free gas..

I think the scientists need to be a little more specific with their claims.

The H2O in the oceans can never exceed the 1 Oxygen per 2 Hydrogen molecules and if the Oxygen molecules were to disappear, well, (see above).

However there are other sources of Oxygen in the oceans being passed through the water from photosynthesis and other production methods and it is these that are falling short..

A reduction of Kelp, Phyto Plankton, Coral die-offs, etc..., due to a mixture of pollution, deforestation (yes the oceans can be de-forested too), and warming are reducing the number of Oxygen giving life in the oceans.

The Oceans themselves are not losing Oxygen.. That simply is not possible without losing the oceans themselves, so in a sense, the poster you are answering to is correct.

As for global warming being the sole reason, that is just absurd..!!

As I stated, it's a great many factors involved. Global warming/Cooling are a natural cycle as we swing to and from interglacial / glacial periods..

We are still technically in an ice age (an interglacial period where the glaciers recede as the globe warms up for a few tens of thousand years), which is something a lot of so called climate scientists neglect to mention for fear of harming the climate change agenda.

While humans do play a role in the current rate of warming, the cycle its self is natural..

Indeed the cycle is natural. I'm not convinced humans have played a role although I'm open to the idea.
Off the Cali coast we've had a number of interesting phenomenon over the last 5-6 years, that my dive partners (diving since the 60s) find unique.
Basically the earth is resetting for better or worse.

OK, let me try this one more time, just to try and get some comprehension going...

Yes, water is H2O. It contains one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen covalently/ionically* bonded together. In that sense it contains oxygen, but that is not what the article is talking about! In order to separate that oxygen from the hydrogen, something like electrolysis is required. Our oceans are not undergoing electrolysis.

The article is talking about O2 molecules dissolved in the water. That's what fish breathe. They do not strip the atoms from the H2O molecules... they absorb O2 molecules. They do not affect the H2O molecules!

Thinking that the oxygen levels have anything to do with the chemical makeup of water is simply declaring extreme ignorance on a scale rarely seen. They are measuring the amount of dissolved oxygen molecules, not bonded oxygen atoms inside the molecules.

Plant and animal life work in the ocean the exact same way they do on land. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Animals absorb oxygen and emit CO2. It's a balance. The only difference is that while land-based organisms use the chemicals dissolved in nitrogen, water-based organisms use the chemicals dissolved in water. If the oxygen were a covalent part of the water, it would be like us trying to breathe sand... sand is silicon dioxide, SiO2... it contains more oxygen than water does! So why can't we breathe sand?

Is any of this sinking in? Is anyone seeing how silly this whole line of discussion is?

Anyone?

TheRedneck

* I include ionic bonding because water undergoes a mechanism known as "hydrogen bonding." The bonds between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms can shift from covalent (sharing an electron to minimize the quantum state) to ionic (held together by an excess/deficit of electrons). Water can contain H2O, OH-, H3O2-, H3O+, H+, and several other molecular versions... H2O is the average. Had I not included the word "ionic" as well as "covalent," someone would have tried to make a big deal out of it.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge
Well to be honest it sounded so stupid to me that I wrote that first sentence you even quoted. You know, the part where I polite say that maybe I got you wrong?

I get it, you are upset and need to quote each sentence.

Also I thought run off "dead" zones in the ocean we from desalination not deoxygenation, meaning a lack of salt water not oxygen. I.e. the fresh water pushes the salt water away and normal sea life cant survive in a fresh water environment. From my perspective they are entirely different, but maybe I'm wrong.

What about those (freshwater) rivers that flow into the ocean constantly.

So what you're saying... is that brackish water doesnt exist in the ocean where a fresh water river or lake empty? Am I correct in that assessment?

No you are wrong. Please quote.

Yeah, never once said I was concerned about salt level drops in the ocean, I was asking for clarification on the appropriate term. And if I was correct in my understanding of what said term meant.

I did not say that you were concerned. I wrote, IF you are concerned. That leaves open the possibility you are not concerned.

But, thanks for trying none the less

Trying what???

omg please don't be so sensible and overthink into stuff I did not write. Read better.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You gotta hate when you turn on a tap, and all that comes out is hydrogen. Buddy never said that there isnt other chems in the water, simply said IF we are loosing oxygen in the oceans, than the chemical make up of the water must be changing. Basic chemistry.

No, the chemical makeup of the water is not changing. The chemical makeup of the oceans is changing, but the oceans are not just water. They contain dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen, dissolved minerals, and dissolved carbon dioxide (which manifests in small amounts as carbonic acid (H2CO3)).

The amount of dissolved oxygen is decreasing... not the amount of oxygen that makes up the water.

Also I thought run off "dead" zones in the ocean we from desalination not deoxygenation, meaning a lack of salt water not oxygen. I.e. the fresh water pushes the salt water away and normal sea life cant survive in a fresh water environment. From my perspective they are entirely different, but maybe I'm wrong.

Some sea life can survive brackish (partly salinated) water. That's why one sees different species close to river outlets than in the middle of the ocean.

You are essentially correct that the fresh (desalinated) water pushes the salt water away, but at the same time the salts and dissolved minerals in the sea water are also spreading into the brackish water. All this does is create an area around river mouths that are less salty than the ocean in general. These areas are not growing nor declining on a continual basis... they are stable. Even a large influx of fresh water, say from torrential rains, will simply cause a temporary increase in the size of the brackish area, but not nearly enough to prevent sea life from simply swimming out a little ways to avoid it.

The issue is that the minerals from various runoffs can over-saturate the water. This is like fertilizing the algae, and the algae grows out of control until the carbon dioxide in the water is used up. Once this happens, the algae dies and the area is over-saturated with oxygen. Some of that disperses out, and the rest is quickly used up by bacteria feeding on the dead algae. That depletes the dissolved oxygen and increases the dissolved carbon dioxide. In turn, the algae will grow again. Eventually this reaches an equilibrium where the algae and bacteria are living in harmony, but this new equilibrium tends to leave the dissolved oxygen levels too low for more advanced sea life.

That area where advanced sea life cannot thrive due to low oxygen levels is the "dead zone." It's not really dead... it is quite alive, but only with algae and bacteria. The more advanced life forms, like fish, mollusks, etc., cannot survive there.

TheRedneck

This is scary. This is why...

earthsky.org...

All the bull# about the rain forest being the lungs of the world is kife. The majority of our breathable air comes from the oceans. Every year we are dumping more and more crap into them...

Look at the Pacific gyre...
en.m.wikipedia.org...
This is scary.

All the climate change bunk ignores the actual problems which are easily addressed with current technology. We need to stop #ting in the air filter...stop allowing boats to dump bilges, and crap. Stop dumping garbage into the ocean. Cows can keep farting and we can go back to gas guzzling V8s, if we start addressing this.

I despise all the climate alarmists. They are selling snake oil to make money. Al Gore should be shot. No the world is not ending tomorrow. The sun is not going to cook our children. Epstein did not kill himself . Meat is not killing us. All that stuff is bunk. Instead of raising awareness they are just creating hysteria ...

a reply to: lostbook

The only way for the oceans to lose oxygen is that it's becoming acidic, which I don't believe. I believe the ocean ph is 8.1 which is in the middle.

originally posted by: ambassado12
a reply to: lostbook

The only way for the oceans to lose oxygen is that it's becoming acidic, which I don't believe. I believe the ocean ph is 8.1 which is in the middle.

A measured pH 8.1 is actually considered 'alkaline' above pH 7.0 and acidic below pH 7.0. Acidification occurs primarily due to Sulfuric acid from volcanic activity but there are people who would disagree with that even though it is a fact we can't create H2SO4 at the rate of volcanic activity if we tried. One belch would be enough Sulfuric acid for lots of car batteries.
ETA

TO Iswhatitis

The Rain Forrest is a filter and takes CO2 and turns it into solid matter that is good for the Earth like wood and various unique foods for all the unique species.

Man mad change is in the water and in the electronic pollution not the Temperature swings that are by now absolutely undisputed geological fact of records of Ice Ages and Warming periods, IMO.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You gotta hate when you turn on a tap, and all that comes out is hydrogen. Buddy never said that there isnt other chems in the water, simply said IF we are loosing oxygen in the oceans, than the chemical make up of the water must be changing. Basic chemistry.

No, the chemical makeup of the water is not changing. The chemical makeup of the oceans is changing, but the oceans are not just water. They contain dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen, dissolved minerals, and dissolved carbon dioxide (which manifests in small amounts as carbonic acid (H2CO3)).

The amount of dissolved oxygen is decreasing... not the amount of oxygen that makes up the water.

Also I thought run off "dead" zones in the ocean we from desalination not deoxygenation, meaning a lack of salt water not oxygen. I.e. the fresh water pushes the salt water away and normal sea life cant survive in a fresh water environment. From my perspective they are entirely different, but maybe I'm wrong.

Some sea life can survive brackish (partly salinated) water. That's why one sees different species close to river outlets than in the middle of the ocean.

You are essentially correct that the fresh (desalinated) water pushes the salt water away, but at the same time the salts and dissolved minerals in the sea water are also spreading into the brackish water. All this does is create an area around river mouths that are less salty than the ocean in general. These areas are not growing nor declining on a continual basis... they are stable. Even a large influx of fresh water, say from torrential rains, will simply cause a temporary increase in the size of the brackish area, but not nearly enough to prevent sea life from simply swimming out a little ways to avoid it.

The issue is that the minerals from various runoffs can over-saturate the water. This is like fertilizing the algae, and the algae grows out of control until the carbon dioxide in the water is used up. Once this happens, the algae dies and the area is over-saturated with oxygen. Some of that disperses out, and the rest is quickly used up by bacteria feeding on the dead algae. That depletes the dissolved oxygen and increases the dissolved carbon dioxide. In turn, the algae will grow again. Eventually this reaches an equilibrium where the algae and bacteria are living in harmony, but this new equilibrium tends to leave the dissolved oxygen levels too low for more advanced sea life.

That area where advanced sea life cannot thrive due to low oxygen levels is the "dead zone." It's not really dead... it is quite alive, but only with algae and bacteria. The more advanced life forms, like fish, mollusks, etc., cannot survive there.

TheRedneck

Thank you for a well thought out and articulate answer. The first part of my post you quoted was just me being a smartass, I do realize there is more in water than just hydrogen and oxygen. However the basic statement that started this thread (the world oceans are loosing oxygen) was vague enough that I sort of ran with it.

As to the explanation of brackish water, thank you for that. It expanded on the knowledge I already have on the topic, so again thank you for that. One should never stop learning.