Is the ocean broken?

World’s Lakes Losing Oxygen Rapidly As Planet Warms – Biodiversity and Drinking Water Quality Threatened

• Oxygen levels in lakes across the temperate zone have declined 5.5% at the surface and 18.6% in deep waters since 1980
  
• In nutrient-polluted lakes, surface oxygen levels increased as water temperatures crossed a threshold favoring cyanobacteria, which can create toxins when they form harmful algal blooms
• Lakes are losing oxygen 2.75-9.3 times faster than the oceans

The research published was published in Nature

 

I don't think that Freon creates a sunlight-reflecting aerosol. Various refrigerants do harm the ozone layer, and some are super-greenhouse gasses. As such, most are either banned or highly regulated.

 

Here we are, right back to the benefits of smog. Aerosolized particulates in the atmosphere help create clouds, clouds help block incoming energy by reflecting it back out to space before it reaches the ground. It's time to bring back coal. Maybe the old coal fired power plants can run on ripped up tarmac?

Ohh!!! I got it. Tinfoil hats.

-Will

 

1. Ozone isn't really in a "layer".

2. The Sun creates ozone faster than we can destroy it.

3. If the governments of the World combined their efforts to destroy all the ozone they would fail.

4. The internal combustion engine creates the much vaunted ozone that we say we need.
How is Ozone Formed? | SCDHEC https://scdhec.gov/environment/your-air/most-common-air-pollutants/about-ozone/how-ozone-formed
It may form near the ground or it may form in the stratosphere, but once formed, it is distributed throughout the air column. There is no such thing as good ozone or bad ozone, only too little ozone or too much ozone at any given location. Too little blood sugar or too much blood sugar doesn't mean blood sugar is bad. It just means there is an ideal range, outside of which, bad stuff happens.

 

I am pleasantly surprised that you've taken such a scientific attitude. The concentration of ozone in the atmosphere is a measly 0.00006%, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is much greater at o.04%.

So just as there can be "too little ozone or too much ozone at any given location", so too can there be too little CO2 or too much CO2 at any given location.

[Let the back-peddling and word-twisting begin... ]

 

But those deficiencies and excesses are localized, whether CO2 or O3. It does not mean they are deficient systemwide or in excess systemwide.
Don't try to twist the meaning to fit your opinion.

 

A Million Years of Data Confirms: Monsoons Are Likely to Get Worse

• Global warming is likely to make India’s monsoon season wetter and more dangerous
• Core samples from the Bay of Bengal provided information about previous monsoon seasons
  
• High rainfall and low salinity times came after periods of higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and lower levels of global ice volume
  
• “we can verify over the past million years increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been followed by substantial increases in rainfall in the South Asian monsoon system.” The predictions of the climate models are “wonderfully consistent with what we see in the past million years”
  
• The consequences for the people of the Indian subcontinent are dire; the monsoon already drops tremendous amounts of rain, and “can always be destructive,” he said, but the risk of “catastrophically strong” seasons is growing, and the increasingly erratic nature of the seasons holds its own risks

The paper was published in the journal Science Advances

 

< WOW!
That you could get anything out of that paper is so impressive, I am in awe.

Tell me, IN, what was the lag time between CO2 rise and increased monsoon rain? I couldn't be sure, but it looked like about 7ka (assuming ka=1000 years).

-Will

 

Hope I don't disappoint you, but since I am not a scientist I often find it difficult understand scientific papers. I have to rely on the scientific savvy of the journalists to translate the papers into something I can understand. Maybe the journalists sometimes also have a hard time understanding what the research indicates? I notice in this article that they quoted a couple of the scientists. Hopefully that indicates that the journalists correctly understood what the scientist's conclusions were.

Can you indicate where in the paper you thought that there was a 7ka lag between CO2 rise and increased rains? Since the current rate of rise of CO2 is much faster than prehistoric rises, I could speculate that the lag may be less? I certainly didn't get the idea from the scientist's quotes that their concern for the peoples of India was for thousands of years in the future!

 

If you are depending on journalists to have a good grasp on scientific savvy you are in for a huge disappointment.

 

The charts on page 6 are an indication of the effects of runoff on the Benthic layers vs seawater runoff.

 

Thanks for the reference. Honestly, I still don't understand much of what is being said. Maybe you can walk me through your reasoning?

Here is what the paper says in the summary. No specific reference to lag times other than "Pleistocene precipitation/runoff amount is decoupled from changes in the isotopic composition of that precipitation at orbital time scales".

BoB = Bay of Bengal, where the mud cores were extracted
IV = global Ice Volume
GHG = Green House Gases
IVGHG = Ice Volume Green House Gases

 

On the Verge of Extinction, These Whales Are Also Shrinking

• Most of the 360 North Atlantic right whales alive today bear scars from entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with speeding ships
  
• Many of the imperiled whales are significantly smaller than earlier generations of their species
  
• The animals’ average lengths have declined by roughly 7 percent since 1981
  
• “We saw 5 and even 10-year-old whales that were about the size of 2-year-old whales,” Dr. Stewart said. In one case, an 11-year-old whale was the same size as a 1½-year-old whale.
  
• Lobster traps and crab pots prevent entangled whales from diving deep enough to find food
  
• Whales who don’t drown or starve right away will often drag gear for several years
• Researchers recommendation is to significantly reduce the amount of rope-based fishing gear and implement ship speed limits in the North Atlantic

The research was published in the journal Current Biology

 

I was hoping you could walk me through it. There was a lot of normalizing and adjusting of data to provide convenient references and I was very lost in the specific lingo.

I don't understand almost any of it, but if they are trying to show a causal relationship using sequencing of parallel data, the chart I referenced seems to show parallel events that are several thousand years apart.

Of course, that all hinges, among other things, on my interpretation of ka as meaning 1000 annum.

-Will