Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.

Taking HN threads further into flamewar is also not ok. Would you please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Taking HN threads further into flamewar is also not ok.

I mean, where's the warning for insubstantial, ideological flamebait in the first place for the top post, dang? And the climate change post before that, and the one before that...

They post these things based on their gut reaction to the headline, and now the discussion in here is about the OP and not the subject at hand.

Devolving to personal attack is worse. Someone else posting misinformation is no excuse. If you have better information, you are responsible for presenting it in a way that doesn't take the discussion deeper into hell. Failing that responsibility discredits the truth, which makes things worse all around.

If you see a comment that you think we should have moderated but we didn't, the likeliest explanation is that we just didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here.

This discussion somehow became brigaded by AGW deniers and you could see a stark turn in moderation, where an absolutely ignorant (not an attack, an observation) root post sits shining high on the mount despite being just embarrassing.

It is incredible and sad that HN is yet another tool for deniers and anti-science charlatans. And if dang thinks that's a personal attack, feel free to delete my attack friend -- the value of this site when it hosts such a cancerous collection of knuckledraggers approaches zero.

The top post to a scientific report is an ignorant screed [not a personal attack -- literal, actual truth] lamenting how wrong everything is, attacking a journalist who did a completely fine job (classic denier playbook), how it has nothing to do with warming. When called upon it began grossly misrepresenting the study, etc.

This is the classic denier play book. Denier 101.

It sits high and mighty. It must be correct, right?

Congratulations, dang, you've moderated yourself a wonderful little AGW denier niche. All while we pretend that scientific reports are "political" lest we ruffle the feathers of idiots who want to imagine how things should be based upon their opinions.

You broke the site guidelines. Someone else breaking them, or posting a bad comment, doesn't make it ok for you to break them too.

If you know more and have better information than someone else, you actually have a greater responsibility; breaking the rules by ranting, doing flamewar, calling names and so on, discredits the greater truth you're in possession of. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I realize that's far from easy when you're surrounded by lies and distortions, but it's work we're all asked to do here.

The study states that 10-30% of the oxygen loss between 1960 and 2010 is attributed to warming-induced decline in solubility, and that globally "the majority of oxygen loss has been caused by changes in ocean circulation and associated ventilation with oxygen from the ocean surface" (i.e. probably also climate change).

Further, from the study it's clear that "deoxygenation recorded in tropical regions often reflects mostly untreated sewage inputs and agricultural runoff (areas identified in Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008)," with many other citations provided as well.

>I'm sorry you had to go through these trials. How very heroic of you to set the record straight for all these dummies. You surely must have some relevant education and peer group, right?

I think you're completely missing the point.

The bombast ("the oceans are running out of oxygen","we only have 12 years left") is counter productive. We need to identify actionable problems and address them now. Alarming everyone through apocalyptic headlines will only fatigue and confuse.

Science isn't there to make you feel good, motiviated, etc. They're just pointing out what's happening to the best of their abilities to measure and analyze. Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution.

>Demanding a feel-good or less dire reporting on it isn't a solution.

It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy. If accuracy is something you see as an optional component of reporting, then I'm not going to be able to get on your wavelength.

If you have complaints about the article's accuracy, spell them out instead of knee-jerking from the headline.

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...

That doesn't mean it's running out of oxygen.

"It's not about feeling good, it's about accuracy"

So....what's inaccurate about the reporting? You've strangely yet to mention any, though you did add your own invented "we only have 12 years left" bit for whatever reason (neither the article or report say anything of the sort).

But yes, we aren't going to get on the same wavelength, clearly. Your original post claimed that I "missed the point", when I clearly replied to someone's specific points, then you injected yet another narrative. This is a tactic as old as time for baseless rhetoric -- just constantly spin around the topic, adding just enough noise that you hope it disrupts the conversation.

Can you cite any of this?

Orwell wrote about communism not socialism in Animal Farm and 1984. Courtesy of his experiences, mainly in the Spanish Civil War, he became a left-leaning anti-communist democratic socialist, and supporter of UK Labour party until his death.

Um, in 1984 the ruling government instituted Ingsoc... English Socialism.

Orwell himself said it was his imagining of communist totalitarianism as it might manifest in Britain. So don't get too hung up on IngSoc (The German Democratic Republic wasn't especially democratic - it was a (newspeak) theme) ;p

Let me see if I can find the actual quote...

[Edit:] There we go: "[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism, but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office."

With lots of other references to communism, Stalinism and Stalin in the Wikipedia section. One more quote worth relaying:

In his 1946 essay "Why I Write", Orwell explains that the serious works he wrote since the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) were "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale about revolution betrayed by totalitarian defenders previously proposed in Homage to Catalonia

Hence calling him an anti-communist democratic socialist. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Sources_f...

And yet, here we are, 30 years later, still increasing emissions, still using fossil fuels, still having a weak global coordination. How long do you expect this 'climate hoax plan' to take? Another 10 years? When will the 'globalists' finally take over with their climate hoax plan?

For edification, I stopped taking you seriously after this comment because it’s a right wing talking point.

Also, Orwell was a democratic socialist and 1984 wasn’t about socialism..

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? Eventually it gets your main account banned as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

Please don't do ideological flamewar on HN. We've had to ask you this multiple times before. Eventually we ban accounts that keep doing it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Warmer waters hold less oxygen. This is fundamental, scientific fact..

Their own characterization is more nuanced than that. The study says that solubility changes account for about 15% (10-30%) [their % and range] of the oxygen change measured. They mention that most of the oxygen loss is at deep levels which are not affected by solubility, though there may be other second order effects from warming. In the section 3.1 conclusion they also mention the big gaps in models vs observed data, and wonder what they're missing.

The study is fine and full of expected caveats. The reporting is lame.

Of course they're more nuanced than your blanket dismissal too. For example

"As the ocean warms from the surface, stratification is expected to increase, with a tendency for a slowing down of the ocean circulation. A slowed down circulation is expected to account for up to 50% of observed deoxygenation in the upper 1000m, and for up to 98% in the deep ocean (>1000m)."

Hardly all farming runoff then. In fact that looks like the vast majority is heating related as the article notes. Yet of course we need to mitigate runoff too, given the enormous dead patch in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Their own characterization is more nuanced than that."

Of course it's more nuanced. I'm speaking directly to their conclusions relative to global warming, clearly, and your very firm put-down of it, though you seem to be backtracking now.

"The study is fine and full of expected caveats. The reporting is bad."

How is the reporting bad? Why? Because it doesn't take a contrarian approach because the science of a massive, very complex system can't be 100%? This is exactly the nonsense every global warming denialist has plied for year ("They're only 99.99% sure, so you should believe my pet theory about like sun spots or something"). It deserves to be stomped out on sight and not tolerated as if it's on some equal footing.

Your post that I replied to has you firmly and with complete conviction wiping away all of it but industrial and farm run off, implying that they just don't know how to measure, etc. It's pretty hard to try to position yourself in the middle ground after that.

The reporting is bad because:

1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests

2. The article leads with 700 ocean sites suffering from low oxygen, up from 45 in 1960, which is not because of oxygen solubility but because of eutrophication. The paper specificually discusses eutrophication here, and goes on to mention "but through nutrient and organic loading management about 70 (10%) of them can now be classified as recovering." (see section 2.5 intro) But that's not shitty doom-saying so it goes unsaid that it's eutrophication and that it's getting better and can be made better independent of warming.

"1. Oceans are not running out of oxygen, as the title suggests"

Does "running out" to you mean hitting 0%? In real-world use it means reduces to the point where it has a negative effect on the system, which is reportedly happening. You and a few others have taken this tact that you just disagree with the claimed alarmism of the article (and its completely accurate title) -- read the executive summary. It's pretty "alarmist" too.

Again you're back to run-off, which is weird -- the science has long targeted it, and regulations and behaviors have changed dramatically to ease it, to good effect. Things as little as most laundry detergent not having phosphor anymore. Yeah, they were "alarmist" about that, solutions were found, and the problem has improved in a lot of the world. But now global warming is coming and it is a massive external force that you can't simply change a laundry detergent around. The report isn't even saying "oh no, get rid of your pick-up", it's simply saying "this is happening". Understanding and planning, if that's the best we can do, is pretty valuable.

Yes, because it’s a political topic that's, pragmatically speaking, only science adjacent. To be clear I'm talking about discussions on the topic, not the merits of the work posted.

If I say “general relativity is likely wrong, but we should use the verifiable predictions it makes” no one will care. If I say “climate models are likely wrong, but we should use the verifiable predictions they make” the hackles will rise despite there being no known climate model with predictive power anywhere close to GR.

Obviously this makes the discussions far less rewarding to one’s intellectual curiosity. Like a fool I still check occasionally on the off chance that there is something interesting to be learned.

Well, the root comment here is boldly assertive but completely wrong on the facts. What sort of reply should it receive?