Bogus De-Oxygenation Crisis


Jim Steele

.

.

Claims that CO2 warming is causing oceans to loose oxygen is thoroughly examined and refuted. In truth, the increase in upwelling and marine productivity, supporting a robust marine ecosystem since the Little Ice Age , is responsible for changes in the volume of oxygen minimum zones. The loss of oxygen is due to the increased consumption of oxygen needed to digest and decay the increasing abundance of organic matter. The media’s headlines of a “de-oxygenation crisis” is simply profit seeking click-bait misinformation, while politicians and researchers seeking funding claim they have the solution to the non-existent crisis.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

5 15 votes
Article Rating
54 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
October 10, 2021 6:06 pm

More CO2 = more plant life = more oxygen

I detest Carbon Cycle deniers!

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Scissor
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 10, 2021 6:22 pm

Seeing as how we are carbon based, more CO2 is good for us animals and fungi.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 10, 2021 7:52 pm

The released oxygen comes from reducing water.
A sea water crisis is imminent!! It’s worse than we thought!

H.R.
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 10, 2021 8:16 pm

Wait… so sea levels are going to fall? I though they were supposed to rise.

I’m so confused.
😵 😲 🤷‍♂️ …… 😜

Loydo
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 10, 2021 8:06 pm

No, less, but I wonder where it’s going? Wait, doesn’t CO2 dissolve in…never mind.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/pics/CO2-levels.png

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 10, 2021 8:44 pm

A true, but irrelevant fact.
One that everyone is already aware of.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
October 10, 2021 11:42 pm

Except Zig Zag Wanderer, that’s why I pointed it out.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 7:15 am

It really is sad when Loydo tries to pretend he knows what he is talking about.
As I stated before true, but utterly unrelated to the point that ZZW was making.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 12:31 am

Loydo
When any gas is in contact with water, some gas will dissolve in the water.

The amount that dissolves at a particular temperature depends on the pressure, or partial pressure, of the gas. The dissolved gas and the undissolved gas are in equilibrium.

But when when concentrations of O2, CO2 and temperature are all varying then it’s a complex situation.

What’s your considered opinion on how the situation in the oceans is changing when ocean temperatures are rising and we’re adding CO2 and reducing O2 atmospheric concentrations?

Loydo
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 11, 2021 1:18 am

In my considered opinion you’re better off just looking at a few graphs.

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg

comment image?GCiguYENEu2ygbYXLL83KAQclejyq8lV

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 7:16 am

Loydo still is unable to connect his fact to anything the rest of us are talking about.
Unless you are actually stupid enough to believe that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the cause of these small drops in O2 levels in the oceans.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 3:34 am

Try to tell us, how oceans are warming. CO2 ?? No
Sunlight ?? Yes
Himan climate change ?? No.

SxyxS
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 3:54 am

Once again you are trying to violate hundreds of millions of years of reality with fake nonsense.

During the most fertile period of life on earth (Cambrian Explosion )
co2 levels were almost 20* higher ,yet this was the time when the first fishes appeared, Einstein.
And the greatest increase in fish variety happened during the Devonian when co2 levels at their lowest were at least as high as they are now but most of the time much higher.

Neither have this co2 levels ever caused a runaway effect nor had they caused negative conditions for the fish – the exact opposite is true as it almost always is when the planet has more co2.

Blame fertilizers or pollution for lower oxygen but not co2.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 2:24 am

How do you know these low-oxygen zones have not always been there?

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 11, 2021 3:59 am

The second map is “Change in oxygen content of the global ocean in mol O2 m−2 decade−1.”

Jim’s “upwelling’ may well be contributing but a lower atmospheric conc. is probably also a factor.

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 5:27 am

I would have thought that surface water temperature and air temperature would have played a large part as well. Obviously you haven’t considered the change from warm to cold state of the AMO or PDO, not to mention the changes due to La Nina/El Nino conditions. Viewing one factor to the exclusion of all others is remarkably stupid and unscientific – look at everything that is happening with the oceans.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Richard Page
October 11, 2021 12:29 pm

Viewing one factor to the exclusion of all others is remarkably stupid and unscientific

And there we have it, folks: Climate Scientology in a nutshell!

Loydo
Reply to  Richard Page
October 12, 2021 12:28 am

“I would have thought that surface water temperature and air temperature would have played a large part as well.”

I’m sure that’s right, I never said they didn’t.

“Viewing one factor to the exclusion of all others is remarkably stupid and unscientific”

My previous post included two possible causes, so why don’t go out for a walk and get some fresh air.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 7:45 am

Once again, you are making the assumption that oxygen concentrations are static, which is obviously false. So you have no idea.

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 12, 2021 12:28 am

Um, no I posted evidence of it changing.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2021 8:18 am

What evidence do you have that atmospheric oxygen concentration has declined recently?

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 12, 2021 12:29 am

I did the research for you, I provided a link to it for you. What, you want me to spoon feed it to you?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
October 12, 2021 5:24 am

Nowhere in your links can I find any mention of atmospheric oxygen concentration changing.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 12, 2021 10:14 am

To be fair to Loydo, the relevant link was provided above as:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/pics/CO2-levels.png

The plot does not tell the whole story, however. The decline in atmospheric oxygen (data from Scripps O2 program expressed as δO2/N2: see https://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/) is remarkably linear when plotted against atmospheric CO2 and reflects about 2.2 moles reduction per one mole increase in CO2 (terrestrial photosynthesis is about 1.1 in the opposite direction).

comment image

gringojay
October 10, 2021 6:46 pm

If the organic matter originates from carbon based life forms & increasing CO2 engenders more bio-mass then CO2 is an “abundance” factor contributing to “increased consumption of oxygen” in marine ecology. Maybe it’s not CO2 “warming” as Original Post points out, but we still get to implicate rising CO2 somehow.

Dnalor50
October 10, 2021 7:34 pm

Always look forward to your informative posts Jim. A minor concern is the video format as opposed to written contributions. I find written words easier to assimilate.

TonyG
Reply to  Dnalor50
October 11, 2021 9:31 am

I agree Dnalor50, I always appreciate when a video is accompanied by a transcript.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Dnalor50
October 11, 2021 1:58 pm

I am now looking into how I can make a transcript of my videos

TonyG
Reply to  Jim Steele
October 11, 2021 3:17 pm

Jim, very much appreciated!

Jim Steele
Reply to  Dnalor50
October 12, 2021 4:58 pm

From now on I am generating a transcript for each video. The transcript for this video is now available at

https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2021/10/bogus-ocean-suffocation-crisis.html

MarkW
October 10, 2021 7:55 pm

If at first you don’t succeed, tell bigger lies.

The climate science motto.

Scissor
Reply to  MarkW
October 10, 2021 8:11 pm

Would you believe global warming is making sushi taste fishier?

Richard Page
Reply to  Scissor
October 11, 2021 5:28 am

Seems a bit fishy to me.

TonyG
Reply to  Scissor
October 11, 2021 9:31 am

It’s making SOMETHING fishier, for sure.

October 10, 2021 8:05 pm

A decade before the CO2 climate scam came along, people were hyperventilating about humans consuming everything on the planet. This was the basis of Paul Ehrlich’s and John Holdren’s carnival barking claims to fame. Oxygen depletion of course came up from its obvious use in the combustion of fossil fuels.

The preeminent scientist of the day (late 60’s, early 70’s) on this topic was Wallace “Wally” S. Broecker, of Columbia University, who passed away in February 2019. Wally Broecker popularized the term “global warming” as a possibility of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere, even though the heat trapping effect of CO2 concept itself went back much further to Calendar and Svant Arrhenius.

Wally Broecker authored the attached essay (as an image) in Science Magazine, issue 26 June 1970:

Oxygen-Broecker_1970.jpg
Scissor
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 10, 2021 8:13 pm

I was little, but I remember a friend of my dad’s talking about this and him pointing out all the vegetation around that produce oxygen.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 11, 2021 2:04 pm

Joel, Great article to add here. In 1970’s Broecker was not only showing quantitatively why de-oxgenation will never be a problem, but he asked mainstream media to help dispel the de-oxygenation fear mongering of his time.

Sadly. in their quest for click bait profits, Lame-street Media has done just the opposite and intensified the far mongering

Steve Case
October 10, 2021 8:10 pm

A short Google News Search on “De-Oxygenation Crisis” Turns up this headline from the World Economic Forum (WEF) 

You can’t have a healthy planet without a healthy ocean:
Interview with UN Special Envoy for the Ocean.

where you will find this graphic and at the bottom is a chart for sea level. After some computer aided graphic eyeballing it looks like the lowest scenario SSP-1.9 is about 0.5 meters of sea level rise by 2100, or almost 6.3 mm/yr every year starting right now. Does anyone ever run those numbers when so many meters of sea level rise by the end of the century are tossed around? 

Just remember, Maurice Strong a former Chairman of the WEF is quoted as wanting to bring about the collapse of industrialized civilization. And Christiana Figueres featured in a side bar at the bottom of the WEF article has been quoted as wanting to change the economic development model that has been reigning since the industrial revolution.

People in 1925 didn’t believe what was written in Mein Kampf* and look what happened. The world needs to wake up to the fact that the disciples of Marx are alive and well, but most importantly, they are busy.  
___________________________________________________

*The author is well known and not named here because getting
tossed into moderation and published the next day isn’t any fun.  

 

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
October 10, 2021 8:43 pm

And those disciples have lots of OPM to spend on highly coordinated, planned propaganda campaigns to further their pursuit of a humanity reducing global pan – g e n o c i d e.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
October 10, 2021 9:00 pm

… or almost 6.3 mm/yr every year starting right now.

That is about the diameter of a very large raindrop. And according to ‘experts,’ will result immediately in more severe flooding.

October 10, 2021 8:12 pm

Loooooooooooose

only a single ‘o’

lose.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Dave Stephens
October 10, 2021 9:27 pm

Loose oxygen. Just the way I like my women.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
October 10, 2021 11:51 pm

Loose women are easy to lose….

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 11, 2021 1:59 am

If you met a tik-toker you couldn’t lose it quick enough.

October 10, 2021 10:30 pm

As so often, the precise opposite is true.

Rising CO2 actually increases oxygenation of the deep ocean as showed by isotope data:

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/atmospheric-co2-is-good-for-the-deep-ocean/

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
October 11, 2021 4:44 am

as shown

High Treason
October 10, 2021 10:31 pm

The oxygen has been taken by oxygen thieves. CO2 gets taken up by life.

Robert of Texas
October 10, 2021 10:58 pm

Oxygen depletion does explain the lack of higher thinking by the Greens. Maybe if they quit holding their breaths in childish-anger their brains would start functioning again?

Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 10, 2021 11:59 pm

Saint Greta put a curse on you Robert.

source.gif
H.R.
October 11, 2021 3:07 am

No worries. No worries at all.

The good news is, if we’re going to a hydrogen-powered economy, then all that sea water that gets split for the ‘H’ will also provide lots and lots of ‘O’s.

The bad news is that we might need to make so much hydrogen that sea level will drop alarmingly.

**sigh** For worriers, there’s always something to worry about.

comment image

Tom Schaefer
October 11, 2021 11:17 am

Keep an eye on the Chinese soot (Fe2O2 component) as a reason for increased ocean productivity.

PCman999
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 12, 2021 8:27 am

Interesting… Would have to evaluate the ocean productivity downwind of any plant.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

%d bloggers like this: