Ocean water with zero oxygen quadrupled in volume in past 50 years - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]The volume of water in the world’s oceans that is totally devoid of oxygen has more than quadrupled over the past 50 years, according to a new study. Over the past half century, the open ocean has lost around 2 per cent of its dissolved oxygen, vital for sustaining fish and other marine life. There has also been a ten-fold increase in low oxygen sites, known as “dead zones”, in coastal regions during this period. Oxygen saturation is a major limiting factor that affects ocean productivity, as well as the diversity of creatures living in it and its natural geochemical cycling. The new study, published in the journal Science, represents the most comprehensive view yet of ocean oxygen depletion. Pollution and climate change both play significant roles in depleting the ocean’s oxygen levels and the authors emphasise the role humans must play in addressing these issues. ... “Combined effects of nutrient loading and climate change are greatly increasing the number and size of ‘dead zones’ in the open ocean and coastal waters, where oxygen is too low to support most marine life,” said Dr Vladimir Ryabinin, executive secretary of the International Oceanographic Commission, which formed GO2NE. Nutrient loading refers to pollution from sewage and fertiliser run-off that contains nutrients that stimulate the growth of algae in the water. Blooms of algae form and when they die the bacteria that degrades them consumes the oxygen present in the water. Warming surface waters resulting from climate change also make it more difficult for oxygen to penetrate into the ocean’s depths. ... “This is a problem we can solve,” said Dr Breitburg. “Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline.” [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ocean-dead-zones-zero-oxygen-increase-volume-size-50-years-pollution-environment-a8142421.html[/url]

This is really, really bad. How bad, I don't know, but I'll leave OvB to explain that to me.

It blows my mind that politicians will overlook this stuff for a pile of cash. You're driving extinction for irrelevant personal gain.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53032947]This is really, really bad. How bad, I don't know, but I'll leave OvB to explain that to me.[/QUOTE] It's definitely not something we want to allow to get worse. I feel like dead zones are pretty unavoidable in the grand scheme of things, but there are things we can do to mitigate it like curbing climate change and pollution. I feel like people often forget it's [I]not just[/I] CO2 and transport/manufacturing/etc pollution that's bad. There's a whole host of other things we need to care about equally as well. One of the biggest culprits is agricultural products running into the sea, and just general mess from population being near the coast. We got fertilizers and prescription drugs and other shit all running into the ocean from our waste and it doesn't just go away. It's like, you can switch to a vegan diet to stop eating meat so their cow farts don't harm the atmosphere but unless you're growing that Kale in your backyard hydroponic garden you're still probably burning a physical hole in the ecosystem. When you depend on the ocean for food and life as much as we do, it goes without saying that we should do everything we can to make sure swaths of that ocean can support healthy fisheries. Dead zones push fish out to other areas and/or put increased pressure on their survival in the area. That plus ever increasing demand and human population... It's something people should pay attention to. Climate change gets all the attention and politics, but things like hypoxia/eutrophication, acidification, bleaching, should be household words as well. They're the real-time results of climate change and are visible now, and impacting the economy now. Not to forget oxygen solubility in water goes down as temperature goes up so it's only gonna get exasperated by warming oceans. Hense why these things flare up in the summer. The Mississippi river and everything that flows into it is basically the sewage pipe of the United States, and is responsible for a large dead zone in the GOM, which has a calculable impact on fisheries and fishers livelyhoods. (struggling industry + longer travel distance to find catches + fuel cost = a bad time for fishers) [url]https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/price-of-shrimp-affected-by-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone/[/url]

[QUOTE=OvB;53033094]Snipped[/QUOTE] Death is the order of things, All things must die eventually. Expect for the jellyfish which welcomes this..

[QUOTE=c:;53033043]It blows my mind that politicians will overlook this stuff for a pile of cash. You're driving extinction for irrelevant personal gain.[/QUOTE] The way they see it, they'll be dead by the time the worst case scenario hits.

Basically do not pour literal shit into the water- That makes the microflora run amok and burn the air out of the water in a feeding/breeding frenzy. You mitigate it by investing in water treatment plants that scrub the water before it gets piped back into the ocean. Of course that solution is more costly than just piping the shit into the water, so if a scumfuck politician is in charge, that's going to be the option the go with.

[QUOTE=St33m;53033934]Basically do not pour literal shit into the water- That makes the microflora run amok and burn the air out of the water in a feeding/breeding frenzy. You mitigate it by investing in water treatment plants that scrub the water before it gets piped back into the ocean. Of course that solution is more costly than just piping the shit into the water, so if a scumfuck politician is in charge, that's going to be the option the go with.[/QUOTE] And is only really feasible for things like domestic waste, which can be captured easily for treatment. Agricultural run off is a lot, lot harder to capture and deal with because it is usually just run off due to rain etc from fields and so on. River catchment where I live in Scotland has a huge problem with nitrogen pollution due to the amount of arable agriculture that goes on around here.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;53033983]And is only really feasible for things like domestic waste, which can be captured easily for treatment. Agricultural run off is a lot, lot harder to capture and deal with because it is usually just run off due to rain etc from fields and so on. River catchment where I live in Scotland has a huge problem with nitrogen pollution due to the amount of arable agriculture that goes on around here.[/QUOTE] Well the days where you just dump artificial fertilizer on your crops might be drawing to close- Not only does that fuck up waterways when it gets washed off the soil as you say- but it also strains the soils future capacity. So it's really a dumb idea long-term.

[QUOTE=St33m;53034010]Well the days where you just dump artificial fertilizer on your crops might be drawing to close- Not only does that fuck up waterways when it gets washed off the soil as you say- but it also strains the soils future capacity. So it's really a dumb idea long-term.[/QUOTE] You're suggesting farms are going to stop using fertilizers? Not fucking likely unless they feel like halving their crop yields. Switching to growing legumes can help mitigate nitrogen pollution though.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;53034103]You're suggesting farms are going to stop using fertilizers? Not fucking likely unless they feel like halving their crop yields. Switching to growing legumes can help mitigate nitrogen pollution though.[/QUOTE] There's alot to suggest that we're actually using more fertilizer than the soil can even absorb anyhow. Using less probably wouldn't impact the crop yield.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;53034103]You're suggesting farms are going to stop using fertilizers? Not fucking likely unless they feel like halving their crop yields. Switching to growing legumes can help mitigate nitrogen pollution though.[/QUOTE] There are more sustainable alternatives to artificial fertilizers, growing legumes in parallel with regular crops is part of that. The only problem is that it's not as compatible with mechanization. Then again unemployment is rising so maybe it's a problem that's actually a solution.

Ok I know this is gonna sound horribly ignorant and stupid but I have a question...how can water not have oxygen in it when thats part of its actual structure?

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;53035161]Ok I know this is gonna sound horribly ignorant and stupid but I have a question...how can water not have oxygen in it when thats part of its actual structure?[/QUOTE] Water molecules contain oxygen atoms as part of their structure, but this article is about molecular oxygen gas (O2) dissolved in sea water, which is what fish's gills filter for them to breathe.

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;53035161]Ok I know this is gonna sound horribly ignorant and stupid but I have a question...how can water not have oxygen in it when thats part of its actual structure?[/QUOTE] Think of it like a soda, there's Carbon Dioxide (CO2) dissolved in the water to make it fizzy. If you leave it out for a while, it stops being fizzy because (most of) the CO2 has left the water due to the temperature rising (and CO2 just escaping as well). Water can hold all kinds of gasses, and most water has a lot of oxygen dissolved in it, but it can very easily be removed from the water by a [B]lot[/B] of different factors, raising the temperature being the most common as the higher the temperature, the less oxygen can be dissolved in it. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] And Oxygen Gas (O2) is different from Oxygen (O)

[QUOTE=The Aussie;53034103]You're suggesting farms are going to stop using fertilizers? Not fucking likely unless they feel like halving their crop yields. Switching to growing legumes can help mitigate nitrogen pollution though.[/QUOTE] If you think farms will lose literally half their crops simply to using less fertilizer, you have a lot to learn about plant growth. Mass farm corps use tons of fertilizer because it's cheaper and easier for them to use, saving them on dollars, not because it actually is the best thing for their products.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;53035432]Water can hold all kinds of gasses, and most water has a lot of oxygen dissolved in it, but it can very easily be removed from the water by a [B]lot[/B] of different factors, raising the temperature being the most common as the higher the temperature, the less oxygen can be dissolved in it.[/QUOTE] That's what happens when you boil water: First you see tiny little bubbles, that's oxygen (O2) that's no longer solvent in water because of the temperature increase. The big bubbles you see afterwards is water vapor (H2O).

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53035482]If you think farms will lose literally half their crops simply to using less fertilizer, you have a lot to learn about plant growth. Mass farm corps use tons of fertilizer because it's cheaper and easier for them to use, saving them on dollars, not because it actually is the best thing for their products.[/QUOTE] I did actually say "stop using fertilizers", which would be retarded. Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphate are the holy trinity of shit that plants need to survive. Plants (especially C3 plants) require a metric fuckload of it, as it makes up RuBisCO, the most abundant enzyme on earth and the enzymatic workhorse of photosynthesis. It makes up ~50% of the proteins in leaves, and accounts for ~20% of leaf nitrogen in C3 plants and ~9% of C4 plants. C4 plants are things like sugar cane and maize, while C3 plants are pretty much every other crop we have. C4 is way more nitrogen and water efficient than C3 crops, so there's a big push to convert rice, the world's most plentiful C3 crop, into a vastly more efficient C4 crop. Shit like that is pretty promising when it comes to reducing environmental pollution, we can irrigate with less water, use less fertilizer, and make more food in the same amount of space. You're also forgetting that the vast majority of farmers do not have access to commercial grade fertilizers or pesticides. Poor or misinformed application of dodgy products can really fuck up waterways, which can fuck over entire communities. Third world farmers are better off using GM crops and relying on methods such as inter cropping, trap/companion crops, and spatial arrangement which are similarly effective, but far harder to fuck up and with a much smaller chance of inadvertently fucking something else.