Oceans are suffocating

[RandomGuy]

More effects of warming and increased CO2 levels

oh, and eat a bag of dicks, Wild Cobra. Try blaming this on "soot", stupid mother fucker.



The ocean is losing its oxygen. Last week, in a sweeping analysis in the journal Science, scientists put it starkly: Over the past 50 years, the volume of the ocean with no oxygen at all has quadrupled, while oxygen-deprived swaths of the open seas have expanded by the size of the European Union. The culprits are familiar: global warming and pollution. Warmer seawater both holds less oxygen and turbocharges the worldwide consumption of oxygen by microorganisms. Meanwhile, agricultural runoff and sewage drives suffocating algae blooms.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/suffocating-oceans/550415/

[Mark Celibate]

Fudge. I’m a marine biologist and I can confirm. Oceans are also becoming more acidic. This is the real environmental threat unlike fake global warming.

[spurraider21]

Fudge. I’m a marine biologist and I can confirm. Oceans are also becoming more acidic. This is the real environmental threat unlike fake global warming.
both are the symptoms of increased CO2...

[Mark Celibate]

Question is, what will we do? All you can do is depopulate the world, but then the entire global economy is built like a Ponzi scheme so it would collapse. It’s be carbon fucking up the oceans. What do we do, deindustrialize?

[Splits]

Question is, what will we do? All you can do is depopulate the world, but then the entire global economy is built like a Ponzi scheme so it would collapse. It’s be carbon fucking up the oceans. What do we do, deindustrialize?

Yes, the obvious two choices are keep your foot on the gas and race 1000mph until the planet burns, or genocide all the shithole countries and live like cavemen. No in between.

You're dumber than tlong

[Mark Celibate]

Yes, the obvious two choices are keep your foot on the gas and race 1000mph until the planet burns, or genocide all the shithole countries and live like cavemen. No in between.

You're dumber than tlongfix it then it’s all yours baby.

[Mark Celibate]

But I’ll add, solutions that involve treaties that hold the USA to a higher standard than other countries are a non solution.

[Splits]

But I’ll add, solutions that involve treaties that hold the USA to a higher standard than other countries are a non solution.

God forbid being held to high standard. What makes America great is how cruel and greedy we are. Fuck the world!

[Mark Celibate]

God forbid being held to high standard. What makes America great is how cruel and greedy we are. Fuck the world!
Let’s put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage while the countries responsible for the other 80% of global output pollute to their hearts desire.

[RandomGuy]

Question is, what will we do? All you can do is depopulate the world, but then the entire global economy is built like a Ponzi scheme so it would collapse. It’s be carbon fucking up the oceans. What do we do, deindustrialize?

Easy to simply reduce carbon emissions. Increasingly steep carbon taxes on energy.

Not difficult, and doesn't involve any depopulation, which happens naturally as we industrialize.

The solution isn't less industrialization, it's more, and using green energy to do it.

[RandomGuy]

Let’s put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage while the countries responsible for the other 80% of global output pollute to their hearts desire.

Myth, and shoddy propaganda. If you are a scientist, you should look a bit further than this narrative.

Green energy forms, solar and wind, etc, are technologies. First nations into technologies gain some solid competitive advantages in economy of scale, and concentrations of skills/industries.

There is a wild west of dozens of competing technologies. Other countries are funding them. We ignore it at our peril

Even fossil fuel companies are undergoing paradigm shifts and beginning to finally view themselves as energy companies first, and fossil fuel companies second. This will have a profound effect on investment and development.

[RandomGuy]

But I’ll add, solutions that involve treaties that hold the USA to a higher standard than other countries are a non solution.

Moral leadership counts for a lot when you ask others to do things. This works for both countries and people.

We used to be leaders, and people others would look up to. Abdicate that at your peril, there are alternatives.

[boutons_deux]

The methane bomb in the melting tundra, permafrost is ticking. That will be GAMEOVER

and you motherfrackers are helping...

=============

NASA just made a stunning discovery about how fracking fuels global warming

Natural gas is not part of the climate solution, it's part of the problem.

https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-study-fracking-global-warming-0fa0c5b5f5c7/

[TeyshaBlue]

At least we are closing the hole in the ozone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ozone-hole-antarctica-shrivels-smallest-peak/

[spurraider21]

At least we are closing the hole in the ozone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ozone-hole-antarctica-shrivels-smallest-peak/
fake news scientists

its so arrogant to think man could affect the ozone

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[pgardn]

At least we are closing the hole in the ozone.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ozone-hole-antarctica-shrivels-smallest-peak/

This and curtailing acid rain have had some fairly dramatic effects. The scrubbing of sulfur compounds out of power plant stacks has done a pretty good job.

[Chucho]

Question is, what will we do? All you can do is depopulate the world, but then the entire global economy is built like a Ponzi scheme so it would collapse. It’s be carbon fucking up the oceans. What do we do, deindustrialize?

Put giant fish tank air pumps in them and ph chemicals til the oceans are stable again.

[Chucho]

The methane bomb in the melting tundra, permafrost is ticking. That will be GAMEOVER

and you motherfrackers are helping...

=============

NASA just made a stunning discovery about how fracking fuels global warming

Natural gas is not part of the climate solution, it's part of the problem.

https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-study-fracking-global-warming-0fa0c5b5f5c7/

So, you really do never leave your mattress in the basement?!?

[DarrinS]

The methane bomb in the melting tundra, permafrost is ticking. That will be GAMEOVER

and you motherfrackers are helping...

=============

NASA just made a stunning discovery about how fracking fuels global warming

Natural gas is not part of the climate solution, it's part of the problem.

https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-study-fracking-global-warming-0fa0c5b5f5c7/


What produces that methane?

[boutons_deux]

This and curtailing acid rain have had some fairly dramatic effects. The scrubbing of sulfur compounds out of power plant stacks has done a pretty good job.

yep, REGULATIONS to cut down acid raid was a huge success, and that was 40 years ago, before the govt and economy were totally rigged by the VRWC/oligarchy. It's VERY different, for the worse, USA now than in the 1970s.

I bet if states that were victims of acid rain in the 60s, 70s, were suffering from acid rain taday, I doubt the regulations would be so easy, so effective, if even implemented.

Now we see the oligarchy's whores like Zinke, Perry, Trash, Pruitt, etc hired to reverse decades of environmental progress, which still has plenty of progress to be made, but won't happen now.

Air, water, soil, human, environmental health will all be degraded, sickened, diseased, killed, for profit of the oligarchy.

[Chucho]

What produces that methane?

Give him a few...he's checking shitty Far Left rags for that answer.

[RandomGuy]

The methane bomb in the melting tundra, permafrost is ticking. That will be GAMEOVER

and you motherfrackers are helping...

=============

NASA just made a stunning discovery about how fracking fuels global warming

Natural gas is not part of the climate solution, it's part of the problem.

https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-study-fracking-global-warming-0fa0c5b5f5c7/

The big ticking time bomb is the crystalline methane deposits on the ocean floor.

Fun thing about that is that we may see some mysterious ship disappearances if that happens. Massive bubbles and fizzing makes the local water a LOT less dense, and a ship sitting on top of it immediately sinks.

Experiment on this, with some speculation about the nature of the Bermuda Triangle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmAXp_BHcQ

[RandomGuy]

What produces that methane?

what produces your confirmation bias?

[spurraider21]

What produces that methane?
not us. we can't control that.

regardless of source, the methane isn't harmful if it stays buried. melting permafrost will release it, tho. we can control that. its much more productive to spend our energy focusing on things we can control. thats why our goal should be to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, not find a way to make the sun cooler

[boutons_deux]

The big ticking time bomb is the crystalline methane deposits on the ocean floor.



sea-floor methane hydrates surfacing will be the coup de grace.

Permafrost methane will happen much sooner, if not already in progress

[Wild Cobra]

The big ticking time bomb is the crystalline methane deposits on the ocean floor.

Fun thing about that is that we may see some mysterious ship disappearances if that happens. Massive bubbles and fizzing makes the local water a LOT less dense, and a ship sitting on top of it immediately sinks.

Experiment on this, with some speculation about the nature of the Bermuda Triangle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmAXp_BHcQ

Yes, but doesn't that occur with a sea level decrease rather than rise?

[DarrinS]

not us. we can't control that.

regardless of source, the methane isn't harmful if it stays buried. melting permafrost will release it, tho. we can control that. its much more productive to spend our energy focusing on things we can control. thats why our goal should be to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, not find a way to make the sun cooler


The methane is from decaying plants from a previously warmer climate

[spurraider21]

The methane is from decaying plants from a previously warmer climate
ok

[spurraider21]

sorry, DarrinS, was there a point you were trying to make? :lol seriously, i must have missed it

[Wild Cobra]

The big ticking time bomb is the crystalline methane deposits on the ocean floor.

Fun thing about that is that we may see some mysterious ship disappearances if that happens. Massive bubbles and fizzing makes the local water a LOT less dense, and a ship sitting on top of it immediately sinks.

Experiment on this, with some speculation about the nature of the Bermuda Triangle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSmAXp_BHcQ

What is wrong about their test is the density difference between CH4 and air. Air is about twice as heavy as CH4. The buoyancy loss would be greater with Ch4.

[johnsmith]

I don’t understand why people would deny this? It’s scary shit....so maybe that’s why....the extreme right secretly is terrified so they just ignore it....maybe?

[boutons_deux]

The oligarchy makes USA policy for oligarchy's wealth, with carbonizing, environmental degradation, unabated, even accelerated, while china, etc are de-carbonizing rapidly

American citizens are powerless, disenfranchised

[Brazil]

I don't read anymore dat kind of stuff... too fucking depressing

[boutons_deux]

BP swims away, the Gulf will be fucked for decades

http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2018/01/16/bp-finally-swims-away-from-deepwater-horizon-with-environment-still-damaged/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FRyNm+%2824%2F7+Wall +St.%29

BigCarbon just got Repugs to open up ANWR and all US waters to unlimited destruction

[boutons_deux]

GMO militants continue to militate for unmitigated increase in GMO mono-crops on chemically sterilized soil, whose runoff of GMO chemicals turns rivers and their oceanic outflows into dead zones.

[pgardn]

What produces that methane?

When the permafrost melts, you get more bacterial metabolic activity. some microbes, when "eating" on the now avaiable "food" produce methane as a bi product.

Oops, basically answered later in thread.

[pgardn]

GMO militants continue to militate for unmitigated increase in GMO mono-crops on chemically sterilized soil, whose runoff of GMO chemicals turns rivers and their oceanic outflows into dead zones.

Stop.
This is absolutely stupid.
The vast majority of people who know the science of farming are firmly aware that tilling the soil is by far more harmful to the soil than your silly monocropping. You look at snowflakes as the problem when the iceberg sits right in front of you. If you are dishonest about this stuff, or over emphasize a minor activity instead of the real problem, then you cry wolf and eventually they throw your stinking bath water out with the baby in it. You have yet to learn about this with people who don't care about environmental issues. You misrepresent, they use it against you on really important matters.

[pgardn]

What is wrong about their test is the density difference between CH4 and air. Air is about twice as heavy as CH4. The buoyancy loss would be greater with Ch4.

The scale of a tanker v. their boat is a bigger problem I would think. The guy says a tanker would snap? You can't automatically upscale and down scale and flippantly say this. And they had an open hulled vessel where water coming over the side fills the boat. Tankers don't have this same problem.


I would think you would compress the methane bubble to approximately the same size as an air bubble. But I don't know for sure.

You would pressurize the methane essentially because of the surrounding water pressure remaining. So your density argument might not make any sense. Have you studied the difference between a methane bubble and an air (~80% N2 ~20% O2) bubble at varying depths surrounded by water? I have not. Then, not just one air/methane bubble but many? This could be quite complex.

I would think the above is NOT readily apparent.

And I am sure a real atmospheric/ocean type scientist could put their kinda silly play games and our conjectures in a much cleaner light.

This is an example of why I don't buy your climate arguments. If your sources and your arguments don't make any sense to a science guy that is not even a climatologist... That's not good.

Everyone is an expert on climate except the experts in your world.

[spurraider21]

I don’t understand why people would deny this? It’s scary shit....so maybe that’s why....the extreme right secretly is terrified so they just ignore it....maybe?
because all scientists across the globe are in on the liberal plot to create fear in order to enact legislation/taxes/NWO

[Wild Cobra]

This is an example of why I don't buy your climate arguments. If your sources and your arguments don't make any sense to a science guy that is not even a climatologist... That's not good.


Not my problem if simple physics and simple chemistry are beyond you.

[pgardn]

Not my problem if simple physics and simple chemistry are beyond you.
Yeah.

Then explain why the density of a methane bubble would be less if the surrounding water pressure remains and pushes in on the bubble the same. It would just squish the methane gas more to possibly be the same size as the air bubble.

Mr. Simple Physics?
You turn.
Explain.

And I'm the science person in this conversation, you disqualified yourself a long time ago.
You think climate is easy... Ok...

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah.

Then explain why the density of a methane bubble would be less if the surrounding water pressure remains and pushes in on the bubble the same. It would just squish the methane gas more to possibly be the same size as the air bubble.

Mr. Simple Physics?
You turn.
Explain.

And I'm the science person in this conversation, you disqualified yourself a long time ago.
You think climate is easy... Ok...

It simply has to do with the density of methane vs. the density of air, and near the surface, there is little compression involved.

The density of air is 1.225 kg/m³

The density of methane is 0.656 kg/m³

[pgardn]

It simply has to do with the density of methane vs. the density of air, and near the surface, there is little compression involved.

The density of air is 1.225 kg/m³

The density of methane is 0.656 kg/m³

Compression is involved.
These boats would be at depth where there clearly would be compressed bubbles. If this were not true, the ship would sink incredibly rapidly. Almost a free fall through air or methane.

So those are the density of those substances in a bubble surrounded by water and under pressure?

[Wild Cobra]

Compression is involved.
These boats would be at depth where there clearly would be compressed bubbles. If this were not true, the ship would sink incredibly rapidly. Almost a free fall through air or methane.

So those are the density of those substances in a bubble surrounded by water and under pressure?


Until they go to point of compressing into a liquid, air and CH4 still maintain the ratio of close to 2:1. At STP (Standard temperture and pressure) they have the density I gave. At two atmospheres of pressure which would be about a 32 ft. depth, their densities each, would be double.

That is the density of the gas itself. The density of sea water is 1029 kg/m3. It really doesn't matter much between the gasses. Still, if on the threshold, the ship may sink with the equal volume of CH4 when it doesn't with air.

If they managed to get 20% of volume under the boat with air, and if you want two ATM, instead of one ATM (32 ft), then the density of the water drops from 1029 kg/m3 to 823.7 kg/m3. This is 80% of the density of the sea water, but unlikely enough to affect a ship. Probably need at least a 30% reduction, but it depends on the ship design. Personal boats that are relatively agile, are a poor choice for such an experiment. The larger ships that are massive, and and almost no agility, are designed with less buoyancy when at their gross weight. That's another thing. Did they use any ballast in the boat to simulate its maximum load?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It simply has to do with the density of methane vs. the density of air, and near the surface, there is little compression involved.

The density of air is 1.225 kg/m³

The density of methane is 0.656 kg/m³

And of course you would dumb the discussion down as if pressure doesn't change those values.

[pgardn]

Until they go to point of compressing into a liquid, air and CH4 still maintain the ratio of close to 2:1. At STP (Standard temperture and pressure) they have the density I gave. At two atmospheres of pressure which would be about a 32 ft. depth, their densities each, would be double.

That is the density of the gas itself. The density of sea water is 1029 kg/m3. It really doesn't matter much between the gasses. Still, if on the threshold, the ship may sink with the equal volume of CH4 when it doesn't with air.

If they managed to get 20% of volume under the boat with air, and if you want two ATM, instead of one ATM (32 ft), then the density of the water drops from 1029 kg/m3 to 823.7 kg/m3. This is 80% of the density of the sea water, but unlikely enough to affect a ship. Probably need at least a 30% reduction, but it depends on the ship design. Personal boats that are relatively agile, are a poor choice for such an experiment. The larger ships that are massive, and and almost no agility, are designed with less buoyancy when at their gross weight. That's another thing. Did they use any ballast in the boat to simulate its maximum load?

At two atmosphere's of pressure surrounded by what? A fixed wall? Nope. A possible sphere of water? Bubbles take on very different shapes and pressures as they move through the water column. They are moving, changing volume and shape. Anyone who has snorkled or SCUBA knows you got a moving mushroom of a structure that constantly changes shape. This is not as easy as putting a known amount of gas into a known volume with rigid walls and saying aha, here it is. If you try the same home experiment to measure the density of air using a ballon you will get an answer that is off if you try and measure the volume of the balloon by displacing it in water. The reason they did the experiment I assume is because the numbers are not an easy thing.

Overall it's rather a bizzare idea.

And the fact that the bubbles moving up created an upwelling of water threw in another variable not anticipated. Imagine this happening deep with all the ocean currents distorting the bubble mass. You might get a big event of nothing. I see the point of trying it as they did learn few things and with so many variables this can be valuable. I think they were probably very proud of their bubble maker and skimped on the boat design. If the boat is gonna sink at some point the water has to get through a hull or other opening. Their boat had a gigantic opening. A tanker type mock up might even be dropped into a bubbling froth and come bobbing back up like a diver.

[Wild Cobra]

And of course you would dumb the discussion down as if pressure doesn't change those values.

But it does change those volume. Doubling the density makes the volume half.

Are you too fucking stupid to see that?

[Wild Cobra]

At two atmosphere's of pressure surrounded by what? A fixed wall? Nope. A possible sphere of water? Bubbles take on very different shapes and pressures as they move through the water column. They are moving, changing volume and shape. Anyone who has snorkled or SCUBA knows you got a moving mushroom of a structure that constantly changes shape. This is not as easy as putting a known amount of gas into a known volume with rigid walls and saying aha, here it is. If you try the same home experiment to measure the density of air using a ballon you will get an answer that is off if you try and measure the volume of the balloon by displacing it in water. The reason they did the experiment I assume is because the numbers are not an easy thing.

Overall it's rather a bizzare idea.

And the fact that the bubbles moving up created an upwelling of water threw in another variable not anticipated. Imagine this happening deep with all the ocean currents distorting the bubble mass. You might get a big event of nothing. I see the point of trying it as they did learn few things and with so many variables this can be valuable. I think they were probably very proud of their bubble maker and skimped on the boat design. If the boat is gonna sink at some point the water has to get through a hull or other opening. Their boat had a gigantic opening. A tanker type mock up might even be dropped into a bubbling froth and come bobbing back up like a diver.

I get all that. Their example using a private boat is no good. Too much of a reduction of the combined water and air mass is needed to sink it.

I don't know the specks, and not going to look them up. But if a boat weights 2,000 lbs, and can carry another 1,500 pounds, it is designed to displace far more than 3,500 pound to prevent sinking. Probably around 10,000 pounds or more, as a safety factor. A larger ship may have a full weight of say 1,000,000 ponds, and since it has far less instantaneous motion in any direction, might only have a maximum displacement of 1,100,000 pound before it sinks. It doesn't need the same percentage of safety to prevent it from sinking.

Now I know the numbers are not real world, but as an example, from an engineering perspective, the safety margin percentage can be reduced as the mass of the ship increases.

I suspect they did not use enough ballast to weigh their test boat down to it's maximum designed load anyway.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But it does change those volume. Doubling the density makes the volume half.

Are you too fucking stupid to see that?

I see that you are dumbing this different phenomenon down too.

This reminds me of you using that solubility chart for a year to describe the behavior of the ocean.