Oxigen is ALSO, and perhaps in vast quantities produced at the bottom of the ocean, by lumps of metal that react with sea water (aka Dark Oxygen). Interestingly, there are now massive marine harvesting operations targeting that very ore.
Oxygen loss already happens, see news about dead fish.
Issue here is that becomes more common and underwater oxygen loss is approaching an “unsafe space” with impacts likely irreversible within human lifetimes, some of which could persist for centuries.
The cost of not addressing it is more distributed: at some point you can't go outside anymore since the UV index is so high, sunscreen can't block high-intensity UV-B and UV-C, plants get damaged to the point of catastrophic crop failures... you can live in denial about climate change in developed countries (for a limited time anyway) but ozone affects everyone.
True but at the time the ozone hole was mostly over the Antarctic so the average person didn't feel its effects which wouldn't then contribute to the change in policy.
If you want to go older and more localised you could look at forestry and fisheries laws. Sometimes we self-regulate and form a stable state, other times we over-extract until collapse
When the costs are low and require no change in personal behaviour, nor even belief in the problem. Billions of people had no idea about changes to aerosol propellants or refrigerants and they were not required to know or agree in order to solve the problem.
Do people have to know about what generates their electricity? They get input now, but we could probably just stop taking public input on new infrastructure and that would avoid poorly motivated protests of wind farms or nuclear.
Historically speaking over over a billion years almost every species has consumed one thing and output another to the point of extinction while another species that consumes that grows and repeats the cycle.
Climate change has been the story of evolution since life appeared on earth and aglae filled the atmosphere with gasses.
We almost eradicated several diseases, usually screwed over by designating an Omelasan child (though, that's a bad characterization, because letting parts of the world continue to suffer and serve as a reservoir for those diseases was actually completely unnecessary).
"We"?
if by "we" you mean Chinese, then yes, as THEY have maintained a cultural structure and language far longer than we have, and adapting themselves and there environment to do that was something they have been doing successfully for millenia,China still venerates the first engineer "Gun"assigned to control the flooding on the yallu river 3300 years ago, and it is then no surprise that they are building solar, wind and other renewable fossil/carbon free energy sources at an unprecidented rate, and ultra high voltage grid systems to distribute that energy, while we wring our hands committing genocide on the Palistinians.
CFCs are responsible for the ozone hole. There are no known significant natural sources of CFCs. The ozone hole was caused by humans and its course correction was due to the political will to phase out CFCs.
> Climate scientists can raise the alarm or whatever but have no credibility
There is a class of problems where "when things get really bad" is also the point when it's too late to implement a solution. Driving off a cliff, for example.
What would you do if you studied this matter for several years, and found overwhelming evidence that this is such a category of problem?
> Ozone hole? Not sure how much of that was cyclical vs in human control.
If you don't know, maybe you should look it up instead of touting your ignorance in a public discussion forum? Your ignorance is not noteworthy. And while you're at it, you can educate yourself on climate change and proposed solutions to it, too. You seem to be suffering from several significant misconceptions, likely because you're bought into a narrative spun out by political hacks with zero understanding of the relevant scientific principles/knowledge and a vested interest in never changing that.
> Things like this, it’s still hypothetical. Climate scientists can raise the alarm or whatever but have no credibility, certainly not when the proposed solution is some kind of global authoritarian communism, and it always is.
Absolutely ridiculous. Climate scientists have credibility; climate science denying cranks who blather about communism have none.
> When things get really bad
Things are really bad.
Muted via my HN front end ... I won't be responding further.
I think that the banng of HFCs is a pretty good example of collective action.
Also, it's important to realize that climate change, as we best understand it right now, is not a "or perish" type of situation. RCP8.5 has now been soundly eliminated from the set of potential climate trajectories, so what we're left with is a question of 1) how much mass migration will be forced upon the world, with concomitant wars and social strife, and 2) how much economic loss results from that, as well as from lost opportunity by not adopting cheaper renewable energy routes.
Technological innovation has done something absolutely remarkable: the future with the cheapest and most abundant energy is the one that switches to renewable energy and storage the fastest. Every day we delay, not only do we end up with a worse climate outcome, but we also just light money on fire, with worse economic efficiency. And in economies built on the continual compounding interest of technological advancement, we subject humanity to far greater poverty for every day we delay the transition.
Most of the world will benefit from this technological change happening quickly. There will be some outliers, like the US, that choose to be poorer and less influential by actively subverting renewable energy in the marketplace (the Trump administration has done a huge amount of economic damage in only a small amount of time), but the US will come around. Texas is leading the way, because they are actually market driven more than they are politically driven, but the rest of the US is kind of screwed on that front for a while.
Next post would be what: Human hubris as measured by UN Hubris Measuring Commitee now threatens to collapse the entire solar system into a purple hole?
Can we please snap out of it and use something like if not common sense but at least a Fermi approach? Or did he die in vain?
The feedback loop between warming and deoxygenation is particularly concerning for deep-water systems that have been stable for millennia. If we hit the thresholds mentioned where the ocean's 'internal clock' is disrupted, it might permanently alter nutrient cycling beyond what current atmospheric models predict. I'm curious if any researchers here have insight into whether localized aeration tech could mitigate this in crucial spawning grounds, or if the scale is simply too vast.
Instead of immediately making this an us vs them with theoretical climate deniers how about we focus on talking about how to improve science communication so that the article isn't something simultaneously dense and vague enough to be easily dismissed.
I'll pick on the US, because blaming India and China will incite their little public defenders to bury the thread.
The Gulf of Mexico is currently downstream of the US's crop production which dumps nitrogen and phosphorous into it, which is bad and causes problems like the article attempts to illustrate.
As you should. The current administration is partially owned by the fossil fuels industry and is literally paying to destroy existing and planned renewable energy sources.
The agricultural runoff problem is an ecological crime scene. We could solve it if we weren't so corrupt.
It's been a known issue since the 1980s. LUMCON/Rabalais, Farm Bill in 1995, 1997 Hypoxia task force, 2001 Action plan, 2008 Action plan, 2011 Stoner Memo...
The point is being deranged about the current admin doesn't help the scenario. Every team (political group) fucked up royally, continues to fuck up, and only cares about how much money businesses are putting into their second home or their kid's trust fund.
Are there actual measurements that even show this deoxygenation?
For example, I clicked on the random link in that paper (referenced as a proof of river oxygen decline) — the article was not even based on some actual data log but fucking deep learning model (which may or may not work)
Yes, the organization I work for studies this phenomenon extensively. We measure pH, temperature, oxygen, flow, and many other factors related to ocean health, and over time, climate change. Hypoxia (and acidification) are emerging concerns.
And since it's HN, we'll have a few genius contrarians in the comments saying we can just manually pump oxygen into the ocean to offset it. They might even say the free market will come up with a way to fund it! I look forward to their insight.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-discove...
Issue here is that becomes more common and underwater oxygen loss is approaching an “unsafe space” with impacts likely irreversible within human lifetimes, some of which could persist for centuries.
Coastal “dead zones”, impact of fish food etc.
What would be the closest “we’ve got to change or perish” moment we’ve successfully navigated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
“Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth” (ieee.org)
I.E. avoiding population collapse due to lack of ecosystem carrying capacity? Eliminating famine? etc.
Banning CFCs perhaps?
If you want to go older and more localised you could look at forestry and fisheries laws. Sometimes we self-regulate and form a stable state, other times we over-extract until collapse
It is possible for us to work together and fix these things.
Edit:
Moving away from leaded gas might be another example.
(CFCs and leaded gas invented by the same dude, fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. Quite a legacy...)
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/ozone-hole-...
Climate change has been the story of evolution since life appeared on earth and aglae filled the atmosphere with gasses.
> Climate scientists can raise the alarm or whatever but have no credibility
Climate scientists have credibility.
Seriosly? Imo they never recovered it since the "hide the decline".
What would you do if you studied this matter for several years, and found overwhelming evidence that this is such a category of problem?
If you don't know, maybe you should look it up instead of touting your ignorance in a public discussion forum? Your ignorance is not noteworthy. And while you're at it, you can educate yourself on climate change and proposed solutions to it, too. You seem to be suffering from several significant misconceptions, likely because you're bought into a narrative spun out by political hacks with zero understanding of the relevant scientific principles/knowledge and a vested interest in never changing that.
Please make an effort to engage more substantially with reality, especially on this forum.
Absolutely ridiculous. Climate scientists have credibility; climate science denying cranks who blather about communism have none.
> When things get really bad
Things are really bad.
Muted via my HN front end ... I won't be responding further.
Also, it's important to realize that climate change, as we best understand it right now, is not a "or perish" type of situation. RCP8.5 has now been soundly eliminated from the set of potential climate trajectories, so what we're left with is a question of 1) how much mass migration will be forced upon the world, with concomitant wars and social strife, and 2) how much economic loss results from that, as well as from lost opportunity by not adopting cheaper renewable energy routes.
Technological innovation has done something absolutely remarkable: the future with the cheapest and most abundant energy is the one that switches to renewable energy and storage the fastest. Every day we delay, not only do we end up with a worse climate outcome, but we also just light money on fire, with worse economic efficiency. And in economies built on the continual compounding interest of technological advancement, we subject humanity to far greater poverty for every day we delay the transition.
Most of the world will benefit from this technological change happening quickly. There will be some outliers, like the US, that choose to be poorer and less influential by actively subverting renewable energy in the marketplace (the Trump administration has done a huge amount of economic damage in only a small amount of time), but the US will come around. Texas is leading the way, because they are actually market driven more than they are politically driven, but the rest of the US is kind of screwed on that front for a while.
Can we please snap out of it and use something like if not common sense but at least a Fermi approach? Or did he die in vain?
I'll pick on the US, because blaming India and China will incite their little public defenders to bury the thread.
The Gulf of Mexico is currently downstream of the US's crop production which dumps nitrogen and phosphorous into it, which is bad and causes problems like the article attempts to illustrate.
As you should. The current administration is partially owned by the fossil fuels industry and is literally paying to destroy existing and planned renewable energy sources.
The agricultural runoff problem is an ecological crime scene. We could solve it if we weren't so corrupt.
The point is being deranged about the current admin doesn't help the scenario. Every team (political group) fucked up royally, continues to fuck up, and only cares about how much money businesses are putting into their second home or their kid's trust fund.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6HEes8daw
There is no hope unless we decide to do things globally. And until you are willing to "compel" countries who don't play along, it's not happening.
So, no, shaming people or telling them to be afraid will not help.
Muted via my HN front end.
who could have thought, eh?
It's real, and documented: https://mississippiriverdelta.org/learning/explaining-the-gu...
If it's a thirst for librul teers, sorry to disappoint you.
This is normal. This is how our Earth the planet works.
I do not know why you think only aerobic biota has a divine right to live.
Do you now feel yourself not completely intellectually honest?
For example, I clicked on the random link in that paper (referenced as a proof of river oxygen decline) — the article was not even based on some actual data log but fucking deep learning model (which may or may not work)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01793-3
Article: https://tula.org/news/hypoxia-emerges-as-a-new-threat-on-can...
Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GB00...
Do you think climate change wipes us out before some other natural disaster?