The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Eric DUPONT]

no dead zones represent a very small surface compared to the surface of the oceans. On the other hand, the oxygen rate which decreases on the global surface of the oceans, let us assume 1%, that is billions of fish less.

oh well where do you come from?

What good is it to want to quantify precisely all of this?

well to estimate the importance right? when you say billions of fish, it is an estimate! but where do you come from?

IN fish farming there is a direct link between the rate of dissolved oxygen in the water, the temperature of the water and the production of fish. when it is hot there is less oxygen and therefore less fish, which is why we add oxygen to the water to increase production.

So if the oceans heat up and the fish have no more oxygen, it is the animals that need less that proliferate. Less fish less fishing.

so it's not too hard to quantify the number of fish less in relation to co2 in the atmosphere. After no one has yet quantified the value of the fish stock in the oceans, so quantified the loss on the stock ???
http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture/fr/

[sicetaitsimple]

For example there are figures for the effects of alcohol, tobacco, malaria, road accidents, etc, etc ... even if that did not prevent the population from growing.

Not much to see ... In these cases there is a direct and identifiable cause. At the moment, I do not think that there is in the world statistics of death identified because of "global warming". Each will come under a specific and identifiable category (cataclysm, malnutrition, etc.) without the link with the effects of CR being able to be clearly identified or not.

[GuyGadebois]

except that you do not quantitatively quantify this effect of CR. The main cause of the anoxia of the oceans is not the warming but the eutrophication of the water by pollution (nitrates etc ...) which "feeds" the algae and plankton and causes oxygen depletion.

If eutrophication feeds plankton, that's fine because it provides 50% of the oxygen on earth and happens to be the first link in the food chain ...
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... erre_16036

[ABC2019]

no dead zones represent a very small surface compared to the surface of the oceans. On the other hand, the oxygen rate which decreases on the global surface of the oceans, let us assume 1%, that is billions of fish less.

oh well where do you come from?

What good is it to want to quantify precisely all of this?

well to estimate the importance right? when you say billions of fish, it is an estimate! but where do you come from?

IN fish farming there is a direct link between the rate of dissolved oxygen in the water, the temperature of the water and the production of fish. when it is hot there is less oxygen and therefore less fish, which is why we add oxygen to the water to increase production.

in fish farming you are in intensive farming, it may be that oxygen is limiting development because you are trying to produce the maximum, but nothing proves to you that this is the case in the ocean. Besides, surely not, because we have depopulated the fish so much by fishing that we are certainly not at maximum production capacity. In addition a priori the fish are free to move and if the temperature does not suit them, they can go get a better one nearby.

So if the oceans heat up and the fish have no more oxygen, it is the animals that need less that proliferate. Less fish less fishing.

so it's not too hard to quantify the number of fish less in relation to co2 in the atmosphere. After no one has yet quantified the value of the fish stock in the oceans, so quantified the loss on the stock ???
http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture/fr/

well then it's not too hard, but you can not do it?

[ABC2019]

except that you do not quantitatively quantify this effect of CR. The main cause of the anoxia of the oceans is not the warming but the eutrophication of the water by pollution (nitrates etc ...) which "feeds" the algae and plankton and causes oxygen depletion.

If eutrophication feeds plankton, that's fine because it provides 50% of the oxygen on earth and happens to be the first link in the food chain ...
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... erre_16036

we're talking about the effect on fish there, not the effect on oxygen. There is a competition between the metabolism that consumes oxygen and the photosynthesis that produces it, but for that you also need light (the turbidity introduced by the sludge is also invoked as an anoxia factor). If the balance is not achieved you can empty the water of its oxygen and everything ends up dying. But that was not the question I asked ...

[eclectron]

@ ABC2019, on the cost of RC.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/201 ... par-an.php

[GuyGadebois]

except that you do not quantitatively quantify this effect of CR. The main cause of the anoxia of the oceans is not the warming but the eutrophication of the water by pollution (nitrates etc ...) which "feeds" the algae and plankton and causes oxygen depletion.

If eutrophication feeds plankton, that's fine because it provides 50% of the oxygen on earth and happens to be the first link in the food chain ...
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... erre_16036

we're talking about the effect on fish there, not the effect on oxygen. There is a competition between the metabolism that consumes oxygen and the photosynthesis that produces it, but for that you also need light (the turbidity introduced by the sludge is also invoked as an anoxia factor). If the balance is not achieved you can empty the water of its oxygen and everything ends up dying. But that was not the question I asked ...

So, your sentence "The main cause of the anoxia of the oceans is not the warming but the eutrophication of the water by pollution (nitrates etc ...) which" feeds "the algae and the plankton and causes a depletion in oxygen "is null and void without further clarification.

[ABC2019]

@ ABC2019, on the cost of RC.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/201 ... par-an.php

Thank you but I was talking about current costs, not in 2030. I find it strange that we always announce figures for after without ever giving them for now. On the other hand, I am wary of articles for the general public that often transform scientific data: for example is the $ 2000 trillion really the supplement to RC, or indeed all losses due to heat waves, which doesn’t is not the same considering that there were good heat waves before already?

I remind you that by 2030 we should only gain 0,2 ° C of warming, it would surprise me that 0,2 ° C would cause 3% of world GDP to be lost ...

[ABC2019]

So, your sentence "The main cause of the anoxia of the oceans is not the warming but the eutrophication of the water by pollution (nitrates etc ...) which" feeds "the algae and the plankton and causes a depletion in oxygen "is null and void without further clarification.

if you want, in any case it was Eric who introduced this, without much relation to the question asked ...

[ABC2019]

@ ABC2019, on the cost of RC.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/201 ... par-an.php

Thank you but I was talking about current costs, not in 2030. I find it strange that we always announce figures for after without ever giving them for now. On the other hand, I am wary of articles for the general public that often transform scientific data: for example is the $ 2000 trillion really the supplement to RC, or indeed all losses due to heat waves, which doesn’t is not the same considering that there were good heat waves before already?

I remind you that by 2030 we should only gain 0,2 ° C of warming, it would surprise me that 0,2 ° C would cause 3% of world GDP to be lost ...

I also think that this is also what can be deduced from this article:

https://www.franceinter.fr/economie/le- ... d-ici-2030

New ILO report estimates 2,2% of total hours worked worldwide could be lost due to high temperatures

you see the subtle semantic shift that there is between "because of high temperatures" and "because of global warming" ???