Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#71

Post by jcims »

taxidump wrote: post #60
endorphone wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Clearly this discussion has drawn in the HN crank squad of denialist and anti-science nuts, so I'll cede this to them.

Maybe the reason you are getting pushback is your tactic of insults. Blowhard, HN crank squad and anti-science nuts... The best way to represent a position here is through dialog, not name calling. Emotional jabs tend to undermine your argument.

Snark is going to be the end of us. It simultaneously provides a dopamine rush to the snarker, a flash of anger in the snarkee, completely destroys any context of understanding or potential for vulnerability and change. Everyone just goes shield up and battles.

We have the greatest interpersonal communication capability the world has ever seen and we piss it away on insults.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#72

Post by edoo »

bayarrhea wrote: post #69
edoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are almost always wrong with science when it comes to policies that aren't backed by a falsifiable hypothesis. It turns out animal fats are the safest fats and vegetable oils are poison. It turns out you don't have to worry about eating cholesterol. The same for salt. The climate hoax is about to be called out for what it is due to the models exponentially diverging from reality. They claim the ozone hole is shr…

Can you cite any of this?

[flagged]

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#73

Post by acidburnNSA »

endorphone wrote: post #56
ThomPete wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3-4% in 2100 if things continue is NOT "the ocean running out of oxygen"

If that has an extremely adverse effect on ocean life, it most certainly is "running out of oxygen".

Given that we've been in a cold period for the past 10 million years, and that glaciation is rare on earth I'm guessing that's not a huge issue.

Warmer temperatures can be survived. It's the rate of change that's going to be the killer. Living things can adapt to change but not suddenly.

EDIT: Source for the downvoters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

And discussion from a world-class geologist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/28/who-cares...

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#74

Post by edoo »

bayarrhea wrote: post #70
edoo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already took over and are now trying to avoid a credibility crisis. We've been living the 1984 socialist dystopia for decades, but it is really starting to show lately.

[flagged]

Generally you stop taking someone seriously when you can disprove the data pushed, not because of some political cult mentality.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#75

Post by NeedMoreTea »

simonsarris wrote: post #66
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page 109 is a summary specifically relating to estuaries and semi-enclosed seas. There are multiple other summaries relating to other ocean types preceding it. From the executive summary at the beginning: The loss of oxygen in the ocean can broadly be put down to two overlying causes – eutrophication as a result of nutrient run-off from land and deposition of nitrogen from the burning of fossil fuels, and the heating…

Yes! That's the problem! Read the BBC article again: Do they mention that the 700 ocean sites are specifically related to estuaries and semi-enclosed seas? They don't? Hm. I'm responding to something presented in the BBC article, something they mention context-free, because they want to(?) imply that the problem is related to open ocean temp changes, when... it's not. It's a problem of eutrophication. It's still a ma…

But the whole report, and the whole article mentions both eutrophication and climate heating as joint contributors.

To take the part you criticise, the preceding sentence is "While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate crisis is making the lack of oxygen worse.", and the following sentence "The threat to oceans from nutrient run-off of chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus from farms and industry has long been known to impact the levels of oxygen in the sea waters and still remains the primary factor, especially closer to coasts."

Are they painting that as warming? Not by my reading. Does every single sentence have to correlate to the title when most do? Hm. No.

Then the article goes out into the wider oceans and talks of deoxygenation there, and the lack of mixing. Suitably dumbed down for their target audience. Could they have spelt it out better whilst meeting the needs of their non-scientific audience? Probably - it's sloppily worded, which can be said about just about every science article in every mainstream publication.

But the core point remains - the report, and the article point to a joint cause, and from my fast skim of summary sections of a 500+ page PDF a majority of the problem stems from heating.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#76

Post by simonsarris »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #75
simonsarris wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! That's the problem! Read the BBC article again: Do they mention that the 700 ocean sites are specifically related to estuaries and semi-enclosed seas? They don't? Hm. I'm responding to something presented in the BBC article, something they mention context-free, because they want to(?) imply that the problem is related to open ocean temp changes, when... it's not. It's a problem of eutrophication. It's still a ma…

But the whole report, and the whole article mentions both eutrophication and climate heating as joint contributors. To take the part you criticise, the preceding sentence is "While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate crisis is making the lack of oxygen worse.", and the following sentence "The threat to oceans from nutrient run-off of chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus from…

I think they are though. If someone says in succession:

"While X has been a known issue, we now know about Y making things worse"

"What was [a little bad] in the 1960's is now [really super bad]"

The implicit finger is pointed at Y, I think. I sincerely think that's the takeaway most audiences would get from a setup like this.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the article. But the really damning thing (700 dead zones) seems way too context-free for me.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#77

Post by acidburnNSA »

bayarrhea wrote: post #67
Phylter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, sensational headlines like this are why so many people have a difficult time buying into climate change. If the media would present it as it actually is then I think more people would get on board.

No, it’s because those people have a deep mistrust of science and expertise, and using as much oil as possible is tied into some weird, macho, and at times oddly Christian identity, and suggesting that that’s harmful is threatening to them.

Anti-scientific thinking transcends political and gender identities in the USA. It can be traced at least as far back as Esalen institute stuff, and likely much farther.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-ame...

It's partially our governments fault for doing things like when the Atomic Energy Commission got caught being fraudulent about what killed 5000 sheep after the 1953 Upshot-Knothole nuclear weapons test series. When the top scientific institutions lose credibility, where we are today seems at least a little inevitable.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/09/magazine/downwind-from-th...

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#78

Post by fuckoffhn »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #77
bayarrhea wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s because those people have a deep mistrust of science and expertise, and using as much oil as possible is tied into some weird, macho, and at times oddly Christian identity, and suggesting that that’s harmful is threatening to them.

Anti-scientific thinking transcends political and gender identities in the USA. It can be traced at least as far back as Esalen institute stuff, and likely much farther. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-ame... It's partially our governments fault for doing things like when the Atomic Energy Commission got caught being fraudulent about what killed 5000 sheep after the 1953 Upshot-Knothole nucle…

Doesn’t make the science wrong.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#79

Post by hanniabu »

marcosdumay wrote: post #41
endorphone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if the root post analyzed the study, or even did the most cursory skim of it, and pointed out how the article differed from its conclusions, that would be valuable. They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear. https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB) There's the actual study. The BBC article is prett…

The article title is even not accurate with the contents. Why must the GP dig any deeper?

Because they dismiss the whole article because of the title and then try to dismiss the article with irrelevant topics.

Re: Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study

#80

Post by NeedMoreTea »

simonsarris wrote: post #76
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the whole report, and the whole article mentions both eutrophication and climate heating as joint contributors. To take the part you criticise, the preceding sentence is "While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate crisis is making the lack of oxygen worse.", and the following sentence "The threat to oceans from nutrient run-off of chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus from…

I think they are though. If someone says in succession: "While X has been a known issue, we now know about Y making things worse" "What was [a little bad] in the 1960's is now [really super bad]" The implicit finger is pointed at Y, I think. I sincerely think that's the takeaway most audiences would get from a setup like this. Maybe I'm being too hard on the article. But the really damning thing (700 dead zones) seem…

Well if you read it in isolation, perhaps so. in context, the three sentences taken together, the last closing with "and still remains the primary factor, especially closer to coasts." seems to point to the correct main cause.

Sure it's sloppily written, but so is nearly every article on astronomy or medicine etc. But I'd generally like more science in my science reporting than I'm ever going to get.

And as it's a longer one, I wonder how much time they get to boil down a 500 page report to 1 page pop-science piece.

Post reply on HN