It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World's Oceans Are Losing Oxygen at an Alarming Rate

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge


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.

You are very welcome!


TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

Yeah, all that nutrient runoff is just immaculate conception?

Please. Humans affect their environment just by being in it, every day. Tne tired old saw that "humans can't affect their environment" is utter nonsense. Indeed, it is the hallmark of our species. What do you think we are using as raw materials to make fortunes? Thin air?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: drewlander

Yeah, all that nutrient runoff is just immaculate conception?

Please. Humans affect their environment just by being in it, every day. Tne tired old saw that "humans can't affect their environment" is utter nonsense. Indeed, it is the hallmark of our species. What do you think we are using as raw materials to make fortunes? Thin air?


It's TRUE that we are very destructive as a species, and the environment is the one that suffers the most. However, pollution isnt the same as climate change. Changing the actual climate is very difficult, mostly because it will resist our efforts. After all if changing the climate was easy, we would never have to deal with severe storms or earthquakes.

The problem I see is to many people confuse one for the other. Just because we can pollute the environment doesn't automatically mean we are changing the climate as a result. Certainly what we are doing isnt helping but as of yet I haven't seen any direct proof that humans have anymore affect on climate than say rabbits and foxes do. The environment, yes! Climate, not so much.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge


Just because we can pollute the environment doesn't automatically mean we are changing the climate as a result. Certainly what we are doing isnt helping but as of yet I haven't seen any direct proof that humans have anymore affect on climate than say rabbits and foxes do. The environment, yes! Climate, not so much.


We did already. When the industrialization started in Europe and every steam engine and later the electric power plants were fired with coal, it was so worse that the fine coal particles in the air settled in the Alps and affected the climate there. The black particles can absorb the suns rays better than the white ice crystals that reflect them mostly.

The ice got more prone to melting and when it tipped a point the climatic circumstances in the region changed too as vegetation grew and ground got heated up better. This leaded to changes in local climate and winds, humidity levels changed too with vegetation and instead of a ever freezing cold, there was a surge in vegetation.

It is a local climate change and I agree with you that we do not make the impact it is always told to us. The climate is changing on its own as you know, in periodic cycles.

Desertification is a even better example.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
If Trump called this fake, then watch all his fanatics come on here and say it's fake lol

Plastic waste in the oceans is a huge problem here.
Waste plastic makes up 80% of all marine debris from surface waters to deep-sea, and is killing marine life at an alarming rate. Fact is, half the oxygon we breathe is produced by our oceans, so of course, pladtic plays a huge part in what we are seeing now.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

I agree that the elites are lying scum. I agree that they caused the pollution by being greedy. I agree that their plan is to make us pay the bill plus try to restrict our freedoms with the same stone.

But - it's clear that they dumped waste into the ocean for decades.

To clean this up will take new technology that doesn't exist yet or is buried in a warehouse somewhere, it will take trillions of dollars and decades to accomplish.

That's why I'm suggesting we, the people, have the elites, the top corporations, pay for all this. Even if it wipes their accounts clean, it's an acceptable contingency. At least we know someone can afford this.

I have ideas on how to build a device that essentially acts as a vacuum for specific chemicals (based on electromagnetism) that could be trawled around the ocean sucking up that specific atom/molecule.

My concept was specifically to vacuum up radioactive particulates, but the same concept could be applied to other things.

We will need way more than this, because it's much more complicated than isolating and containing a few types of chemicals. We will need to physically locate, retrieve, and properly dispose of canisters, barrels, and debris.

We will likely also need to take several other actions and develop an entire industry around this project. Whole new branches of technology will emerge.

You must separate the elites and their agendas from what our common sense and knowledge inform us. If the elites said the sky was blue gimme 5$, we would say hell no not my $, but the sky is still blue.

A broken clock is still right twice a day, and in this case it's true we polluted the oceans. But the elites were behind it and ought to pay it from their vast fortunes.

The average person has always been on the short end of the stick, and it would be tragic to see us pay for this when we can hardly pay our meager bills to continue our humble lifestyles. Especially when it's clear Dupont BASF and the rest of them can afford to pay for their own misdeeds.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s


Humans affect their environment just by being in it, every day.

So does every other species. Even plants. Ever seen a magnolia tree? They have these large, thick leaves that blanket the ground every fall, killing whatever is beneath them and locking moisture in the ground.

The question is not whether we are affecting the environment, but how much are we affecting the environment negatively. We have killed off most of the other predators, for instance, but we have also taken their place. Once upon a time, the deer in this area were kept in control by wolves, bobcats, and mountain lions. Today there are few of those left, but we have hunters who do the same thing. The deer population is stable, and actually more plentiful then before we killed off the natural predators. That is an environmental change that has not negatively affected our environment.

Were we to outlaw hunting, the deer population would explode and most deer would die off during the winter from starvation. That in turn would lead to the entire species becoming sickly and would be a negative impact on our environment.

All it takes to fight pollution is common sense. If you find a bunch of trash, pick it up. Buy things with less packaging; sell things using the minimum acceptable amount of packaging. If you can find a use for trash, use it (2-liter coke bottles make great storage containers and funnels). It may not seem like much, but as long as we continue to produce too much waste, we are fighting a losing battle against what pollution there already is.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Oleandra88

Nearly every day I verbally lament the destruction of the Amazon rainforest to people around me.

I believe "climate change" is a political agenda - BUT pollution and destruction of the environment is very REAL.

I think it's a conspiracy to twist the discussion from "is pollution a problem" into "this is global climate change".

They cite all the pollution the average person (or cow) creates - yet they knowingly hide and avoid discussing how their corporations cheated and dumped all this junk in natural ecosystems.

We the average person is responsible for less than 10% of this mess, big corporations are responsible for the vast majority of this problem. It's because they care about profits no matter what had to be done to accumulate it - even destroying our environment.

For example, the Chinese citizens aren't the problem in Chinas eco-disaster, it was the corporations that run China that are responsible because their policies and procedures promoted polluting for profit gains.

This entire issue has been butchered by the media mouthpieces as they shifted it from a nonpartisan discussion into partisanship and politics. They did this specifically to protect themselves from their LEGAL LIABILITY as they are responsible and we can force them to foot the bills for clean up via the courts and executive agencies.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

You're the only one bringing up climate change here.

I was responding to the notion that we somehow lack the ability to deoxygenate the world's oceans as a side-effect of our relentless and short-sided profit-taking.




After all if changing the climate was easy, we would never have to deal with severe storms or earthquakes.


Is this a good-faith argument where you come from? Do you honestly believe we must learn to harness the power of earthquakes before we can learn to clean up polluted oceans, streams and waterways?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




This entire issue has been butchered by the media mouthpieces as they shifted it from a nonpartisan discussion into partisanship and politics. They did this specifically to protect themselves from their LEGAL LIABILITY as they are responsible and we can force them to foot the bills for clean up via the courts and executive agencies.


That's because the people no longer own the news, if they ever did and journalists are not allowed to badmouth the chains of corporate ownership that bind them to service.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Good post.

Yes we need to double down on recycling everything we can and continue investing in better disposal methods for non recyclables.

We can turn this thing around cheaply and efficiently in that regard.

The big money pit will be the global initiative to clean up the planet from the waste our corps dumped over the last century. My idea is to make them clean it with their fortunes built off creating the problems.

Sadly the worthless U.N. keeps talking about it but hardly does anything productive towards tackling this head-on. Imo that's because they know they created the monster and would rather cover-up and distract us from this painful truth.

All the ideas coming out of the UN are miraculously letting the elites escape all blame, while putting the whole thing on the average person then demanding new taxes and tyrannical policy. So of course nothing will get done, this is the UN after all...



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Even if we are not creating an anoxic event in the oceans (which I am still partially skeptical of) - it's clear to me that dumping millions of canisters of toxic waste into the ocean haphazardly was very dumb and definitely will lead to negative effects.

Maybe it doesn't affect the o2 content too drastically, who knows?

But it sure as hell poisons the sea life and our food is tainted with all sorts of toxins now.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


They cite all the pollution the average person (or cow) creates - yet they knowingly hide and avoid discussing how their corporations cheated and dumped all this junk in natural ecosystems.

Quoted for truth.


That's what Global Warming has turned into and why I remain so steadfast in my denial of the lies. I keep hearing people repeat the talking point of "what harm can it do to help the climate?" The harm is being done right now, as we speak: actual problems are being ignored because the lies and deceit of Global Warming are hyped so much.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: drewlander

Yeah, all that nutrient runoff is just immaculate conception?

Please. Humans affect their environment just by being in it, every day. Tne tired old saw that "humans can't affect their environment" is utter nonsense. Indeed, it is the hallmark of our species. What do you think we are using as raw materials to make fortunes? Thin air?


Help us out. Are you human? Then I think you are trying to say we need to eliminate useless humans right? I think I see where you are headed and if it is so, why won't you help us out and off yourself? I am not trying to be mean at all I am just trying to understand you since you think yours and my existence is a problem for Earth. I mean why are you still here if you think humans are just bad? /s

Seriously, you are dealing with people who have lied to us like Redneck so eloquently explains in several posts. We are not able to control Climate and the liars want you to think you can. We CAN control water pollution and a lot of that is from Cities and Farms it is a matter of action and nothing more.
edit on 11-12-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes they turned reality into a false dichotomy specifically to avoid cleaning up their own mess (profiteers).

Artifice from Avarice.

And it's kept them totally unaccountable this whole time... Until when? 100 years after the fact?? Hahahaha



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Probably due to all the piss and # that the east and west coasts dump into it every second.

There are people who refuse to eat seafood that comes out of the Pacific because of California. That place is a total dump.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

The temp rise is 1° or less.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018



In all zealousness I'd like to introduce you to one of the major polluters of coastline off the very southwestern tip of America. I bring you... The TIJUANA River Basin. This epic beast is the literal starfish end of a metropolis that has the incapability to manage its sewer treatment system. Literally defecating on America, on American beach goers. On nature.



..Local residents holding signs that read “stop the poop” attended a rally Sunday morning...


The Tijuana river wiki


The Tijuana River drains an arid area along the U.S.—Mexico border, flowing through Mexico for most its course then crossing the border into Southern California for its lower 5 mi (8 km) to empty into the ocean in an estuary on the southern edge of San Diego. The Tijuana River has two main tributaries. One, the Arroyo de Alamar or Rio Alamar, runs in its upper reaches in the United States as Cottonwood Creek. It runs from its source in the Laguna Mountains southwestward where it is impounded by two dams, Barrett and Morena, to supply water to the city of San Diego. Cottonwood Creek is joined by the Tecate Creek before it enters Mexico where it is known as the Arroyo de Alamar from the point where it enters Mexico to its confluence with the larger tributary, the Arroyo de las Palmas, that forms the headwaters of the Tijuana River within the city. The Arroyo de las Palmas, the main tributary of the Tijuana River, flows out of the mountains to the east into the reservoir behind the Abelardo L. Rodríguez Dam. Downstream from the Rodríguez Dam, water flows through Tijuana in a concrete channel to the international border; there it continues west through the Tijuana River Valley for a distance of about nine miles to the estuary and then to the Pacific Ocean. Its lower reaches provide the last undeveloped coast wetlands in San Diego County amidst a highly urbanized environment at the southern city limits of Imperial Beach. The river has been the subject of great controversy in recent decades regarding pollution, flood control, and U.S. border protection.


as a san diegan this is an issue of great concern for me.
edit on 17-12-2019 by MConnalley because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

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?


Actually, the Oceans are pure H2O.. They can't be anything else. Everything else in the oceans is free floating soluble compounds that do not interact with or bond with the Water molecules in any way.

Yes I did read the report...

To me it came off as a pro Global warming apocalyptical piece of propaganda. While they cite that there are other contributing factors, they seem to be placing the most blame on man made Global warming, which in reality, does not exist.

Most real scientists, with actual PHD's in Climatology, Geology and Biology, would tend to agree with this. I tend to take any journalistic report, or any scientific report quoted with a grain of salt, unless there is also a petition of noted and named PHD's accompanying. Anything less is just an opinion piece.

When some media outlet starts off with the catchy heading like +1000 Scientists acknowledge Climate change (a recent headline from another story), well, who were those scientists and what were their credentials..!?!

While I will admit to the concept that humans have played a role in the speed at which the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Holocene epoch and the interglacial period related to it, the cycle its self is natural and recurring over hundreds of thousands of years.
edit on 17-12-2019 by Ironclad1964 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Ironclad1964




Most real scientists, with actual PHD's in Climatology, Geology and Biology, would tend to agree with this. I tend to take any journalistic report, or any scientific report quoted with a grain of salt, unless there is also a petition of noted and named PHD's accompanying. Anything less is just an opinion piece


Thanks for your imput. Are you an actual scientist with a PHD in Climatology, Geology and/or Biology? If so, then what do you think is the answer?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join