World's Oceans Are Losing Oxygen at an Alarming Rate

a reply to: muzzleflash

I never wrote the destruction is not real, not downplayed it. Just cleared up some chemistry things on a more basic and crude level than TheRedneck (:cheers did.

I got with that other poster on the wrong foot and tried to restart the conversation on another level to show I am not interested in bitching around and just misunderstood. That was the reason of the message that you answered to.

Its not just oceans. Fresh water is the same....

The deal is, we wring our hands and try to figure out how to tax people and other nonsense. Meanwhile, 90% of all oceanic pollution (plastics, anyway) derives from something like 13 rivers. If we would just put energy into that small amount of inflow, we could improve the health of the oceans.

Something else to consider: seismic activity has a huge impact on acidification. We really don't have much knowledge in underwater eruption activity. But it is reasonable to assume that if surface events are on the uptick, so are submerged volcanos.

Last thing: our penchant for tribalism fuels massive military efforts that include dumping jet fuel into the ocean. This, on top of offshore drilling and stuff like Fukushima certainly doesn't help.

Having data is nice. But without a will to actually act (without tax schemes) makes the data useless.

originally posted by: lostbook
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?

Do I have a Doctorate or PhD in any of the Geological or Biological sciences..?

No.

Do I have Bachelor's Degree's in any of said subjects..

Yes, more than one (including a Masters).

As for my opinions, based on what I know from a scientific stand point, I have made that pretty clear in other posts in this thread and others similar to it.

While a Degree or masters are not quite up to scratch with a full PhD, I'm pretty sure I have a little more foresight into these matters than some journalist, sprouting off facts without giving a full account of the science behind his/her claims or the backed peer reviews to present those ideas as a possibility.

While there have been many peer reviewed thesis on the Biological and geological mechanics involved in climate fluctuation, I am yet to see one on man made climate change, with full backing of the accredited scientific community.

originally posted by: Ironclad1964
Actually, the Oceans are pure H2O..

Among other things, what about the salt?

originally posted by: Ironclad1964

originally posted by: lostbook
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?

Do I have a Doctorate or PhD in any of the Geological or Biological sciences..?

No.

Do I have Bachelor's Degree's in any of said subjects..

Yes, more than one (including a Masters).

As for my opinions, based on what I know from a scientific stand point, I have made that pretty clear in other posts in this thread and others similar to it.

While a Degree or masters are not quite up to scratch with a full PhD, I'm pretty sure I have a little more foresight into these matters than some journalist, sprouting off facts without giving a full account of the science behind his/her claims or the backed peer reviews to present those ideas as a possibility.

While there have been many peer reviewed thesis on the Biological and geological mechanics involved in climate fluctuation, I am yet to see one on man made climate change, with full backing of the accredited scientific community.

So are you saying that you think man has zero influence?

a reply to: lostbook

He argued the absence of evidence - not that there is evidence of absence.

So no he didn't say or imply that man has zero influence.

Why is it that when someone denies something, others jump to the extreme opposite as their conclusion?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Just trying to clarify. I make no assumptions either way.

a reply to: lostbook

Absolutely not...

As I have stated in this and other threads on the subject, humankind definitely (in my opinion only), does play a role in the rate at which the current interglacial warming period speeds up towards its end goal in the climate cycle.

Albeit however, mankind plays a very small part.

The amount of atmospheric and oceanic pollution mankind has placed into this world since the dawn of industrialism is minimal compared to other natural phenomenon over similar periods where humans were not present.