If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Why this year's Gulf dead zone is twice as big as last year's   (motherjones.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, gulf, Gulf dead zone, Mississippi Delta, water body, severe storm, U.S. Geological Survey  
•       •       •

8051 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Aug 2013 at 8:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-15 08:15:29 AM  
Global warming!

/amidoingitright?
 
2013-08-15 08:15:40 AM  
FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?
 
2013-08-15 08:16:34 AM  
Must not be that interesting
 
2013-08-15 08:16:43 AM  
I left a dead zone near my desk yesterday after eating at Taco Bell for lunch.
 
2013-08-15 08:21:47 AM  
Your mom?
 
2013-08-15 08:24:28 AM  
Lana.

Lana.

Lana.

Laaaanaaaaaa.

What?!

Dead zone.
 
2013-08-15 08:26:24 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


No, this is scientifically accurate.  The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.  Crude oil has some organisms capable of metabolizing it.

This environmental damage essentially represents the side effects of 90% of US farming.  That's a lot of shiat.  Dissolved oxygen is a big deal, and it is the single biggest concern of your local waste-water treatment plant too.

//and double last year wouldn't make sense with an underlying cause of deepwater horizon.
 
2013-08-15 08:27:20 AM  
This could help.
 
2013-08-15 08:29:03 AM  

ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.


Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.
 
2013-08-15 08:30:31 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Oils don't sink.  Come on, basic chemistry here.
 
2013-08-15 08:31:42 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water.  Basic biology too, duder.
 
2013-08-15 08:32:15 AM  
The Iowa River?

[checks article, sees maps]

Yup.
 
2013-08-15 08:32:39 AM  

ikanreed: Oils don't sink. Come on, basic chemistry here.


This your first time hearing about the oil spill, or are you being intentionally dense?

There was this thing called Corexit which they used to sink all the oil so people like you would think it disappeared.
 
2013-08-15 08:35:01 AM  

ikanreed: J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.

Oils don't sink.  Come on, basic chemistry here.


Ahem:

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/submerged-oil-pollu ti on-western-gulf-mexico-restoration-coming-after-2005-dbl-152-oil-sp

That said, ya, BP is probably not responsible for the dead zone, or at least not all of it; that's been around for years before their latest blow-out, iirc.
 
2013-08-15 08:38:16 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


The Deepwater Horizon spill was so bad, it created Gulf Dead Zone decades before it happened?

Sounds like the work of Obama's time machine. GULFDEADZONEGATE!
 
2013-08-15 08:40:29 AM  

ikanreed: Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water. Basic biology too, duder.


Explain to me why an oil spill isn't also a threat to phytoplankton.
 
2013-08-15 08:44:18 AM  
I'm going to guess it has something to do with a substance that comes out of the ground
 
2013-08-15 08:47:59 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water. Basic biology too, duder.

Explain to me why an oil spill isn't also a threat to phytoplankton.


Explain to me how oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico caused algae-bloom dead zones in Lake Erie in the 1960s and 1970s?
 
2013-08-15 08:50:55 AM  

BMFPitt: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?

The Deepwater Horizon spill was so bad, it created Gulf Dead Zone decades before it happened?

Sounds like the work of Obama's time machine. GULFDEADZONEGATE!


Beat me to it.

Oh well, just for fun:

THE OIL SPILL.... IT'S TRAVELING... THROUGH TIME!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-15 08:52:02 AM  
Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.
 
2013-08-15 08:52:17 AM  
Yes, yes, there is a lot of death but what will survive and what will become of it. What we need is a real solution.

/#9
 
2013-08-15 08:55:30 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.  Dispersants dissolve fundamental building blocks of life.  I wonder what effect that could have.

//Oil spills are still really terrible.
 
2013-08-15 09:02:52 AM  

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic. Dispersants dissolve fundamental building blocks of life. I wonder what effect that could have.


Not sure if trolling, or actually that dumb.

9/10 if trolling, 'cause I'd totally accept that as a genuine, ignorant opinion. Needs a bit more of an edge, though. "Durr" was a nice touch but maybe throw in a hint of conspiracy theory?
=Smidge=
 
2013-08-15 09:03:09 AM  
Aaand, this.

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.


Sad that i can't even tell if you're being serious. Oil is very toxic.
 
2013-08-15 09:17:51 AM  
I think you're looking only at the negative side of all this. I like the fact that when I fry Gulf shrimp it comes with its own oil.

consciouslifenews.com
 
2013-08-15 09:30:06 AM  
This must be a plot by the vast right-wing conspiracy (who controls the MSM)

The messiah promised us change.
www.upl.co
I guess feeling up children in airports and snooping on everyone's phones and internet traffic became a higher priority. Because... terrorism.
 
2013-08-15 09:30:50 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Translation:

"I didn't read the article and now I look silly.  EJECT!  EJECT!  EJECT!"
 
2013-08-15 09:43:39 AM  

It's all about drainage.

bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com

DRAAAINAGE!!!
 
2013-08-15 09:46:32 AM  
TL;DR:

Because last year's was abnormally low, that's why.
 
2013-08-15 09:55:52 AM  
Replace that toxic corn culture with say, hemp, and watch what happens.
Two ironic thoughts.
Indians gave us corn and casinos.
 
2013-08-15 09:56:07 AM  
While the Deepwater Horizon certainly didn't help it, the phenomenon has been tied to use of artificial fertilizers for a good long time now. It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food." Without large-scale agriculture, growth of urban areas would have been curtailed by the logistical limitations of shipping fresh food into them. Of course, this fresh food would have been severely limited in quantity, were it not for modern agricultural advances, including artificial fertilizers. On top of this, we denizens of "fly-over country"would have made sure we got ours first, as the economics of shipping dictates.
 
2013-08-15 10:01:10 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Aaand, this.

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.

Sad that i can't even tell if you're being serious. Oil is very toxic.


Crude oil isn't very toxic.  Refined oil is hella toxic.  Check EPA toxicity reports.
 
2013-08-15 10:02:47 AM  

HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."


With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying
 
2013-08-15 10:07:54 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Do yourself a favor and RTFA and you won't sound ignorant. This was going on long before the BP spill. And it's also happening in the Chesepeake and Lake Erie.
 
2013-08-15 10:09:00 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Or you could just leave, I guess.
 
2013-08-15 10:10:02 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying


Assumption of facts not in evidence
 
2013-08-15 10:14:51 AM  
 
2013-08-15 10:21:53 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


BP makes fertilizer now?  This is an algae problem created by high K levels in the water.  The algae bloom causes extremely low oxygen levels, too low for fish to survive.
 
2013-08-15 10:25:35 AM  
Hello Mother Jones.  A few questions for you.

Agriculture only amounts to half the runoff.  Care to mention human sewage and lawn care for the Chesapeake(mentioned for the Mississippi)?  (Seriously, even though we do have water, unlike crazier states, you think they could get in a dig at US lawn culture).
You included a handy map of Maryland (and PA/DE) chicken farming.  Care to include a map of MD population as well?  Care to guess which has a higher correlation?
What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?  (This is a real question, but I'm guessing that it wasn't included because even hippies don't want to eat it, and Mother Jones readers don't want to read about mass farmed livestock feed).
 
2013-08-15 10:26:12 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: neversubmit: Assumption of facts not in evidence

Yes, nothing like what I described exists what so ever


reading comprehension fail
 
2013-08-15 10:27:29 AM  

neversubmit: reading comprehension fail


Apparently
 
2013-08-15 10:30:57 AM  

snocone: Replace that toxic corn culture with say, hemp, and watch what happens.


Food prices will rise and people will starve?

Corn is a calorie crop; hemp isn't. You'd get the same effect by replacing corn with cotton.

\Hell, corn is basically the premier calorie crop. It's the dominant foodstuff on three continents. It's why it's so wildly popular. It's also easier on the environment than rice, alfalfa, sorghum, etc.
 
2013-08-15 10:34:29 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?


And why are we advocating soil-intensive foreign species, versus corn or beans -- which are native to the Americas.
 
2013-08-15 10:39:21 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying


Y-you really think a city can grow enough on urban farms to be self-sustaining.

Protip: You can't.

You will always need "flyover country."

We are with you forever.

Deal with it.
 
2013-08-15 10:57:16 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


BP did their bit
They fired the boss
That'll fix things...
 
2013-08-15 10:58:12 AM  

Elegy: IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying

Y-you really think a city can grow enough on urban farms to be self-sustaining.

Protip: You can't.

You will always need "flyover country."

We are with you forever.

Deal with it.


Well, in a strictly science-fiction perspective, hydroponics and some sort of cheap unlimited energy like fusion could yield incredibly controlled high density agricultural production.  In near terms that's, as you said, basically impossible.
 
2013-08-15 10:58:55 AM  

This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?

And why are we advocating soil-intensive foreign species, versus corn or beans -- which are native to the Americas.


"Corn" of today has little or nuttin to do with "native species".
Same with "wheat".
 
2013-08-15 11:00:09 AM  

sbchamp: J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.

BP did their bit
They fired the boss
That'll fix things...


No you know where that little pink cheeked yachting cherub is today?
 
2013-08-15 11:07:49 AM  

snocone: "Corn" of today has little or nuttin to do with "native species".


Maize is two gene substitutions away from its native small bushy plant form. It still freely hybridizes with it.
 
2013-08-15 11:14:50 AM  
Too many people pissing in the pool.
 
2013-08-15 11:15:28 AM  

This text is now purple: snocone: Replace that toxic corn culture with say, hemp, and watch what happens.

Food prices will rise and people will starve?

Corn is a calorie crop; hemp isn't. You'd get the same effect by replacing corn with cotton.

\Hell, corn is basically the premier calorie crop. It's the dominant foodstuff on three continents. It's why it's so wildly popular. It's also easier on the environment than rice, alfalfa, sorghum, etc.


You say this all like it's a bad thing.
 
2013-08-15 11:15:45 AM  

This text is now purple: snocone: "Corn" of today has little or nuttin to do with "native species".

Maize is two gene substitutions away from its native small bushy plant form. It still freely hybridizes with it.


Good for Maize, not our problem.
Our problem is the good ole' "profit at any cost" thingie.
 
2013-08-15 11:16:26 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying


Urban farming as a replacement for the real thing? Are you sure that you have a proportional view of the scale required?
 
2013-08-15 11:25:59 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water. Basic biology too, duder.

Explain to me why an oil spill isn't also a threat to phytoplankton.


Phyto-plankton (phyto means plant) are photo-synthesizers and thus inhabit the upper layers of the water column. That's the key take-away point in answer to your question.

The oil and natural gas that leaked from BP's blowouts (and which leaks to some extent from all oil operations) tends to disperse through a sort of very slow cracking and through mixture with water. It may be toxic to some phyto-plankton, but there is so much plankton in the water where ever there are nutrients for plants, that it can't do much damage, at least once it is dispersed. The algae and other plant or plant-like plankton springs back fast. Most of the gunk that doesn't get dispersed over large areas and volumnes (which by now includes much of the Gulf Stream and the Atlantic Ocean, I imagine) sinks or washes up on beach as tar balls. It is concentrated and doesn't affect the upper water column much. Thus the phyto-plankton does not get seriously hurt by an oil spill. It can spring back as soon as the petroleum is "gone".

The dead zone is produced by a different type of mechanism. Rather than crude petroleum or natural gas, the problem is fertilizer. Plants love the stuff. Too much will burn them but as long as they can absorb it, it makes them grow. And grow, and grow, and grow. The dead zone is deprived of oxygen by plant growth, mainly green algae. If you have seen a badly cleaned aquarium, you know too much fertilizer (fish food, fish poo) will turn lovely clear water into bright green goo (algae) which takes up the oxygen and kills everything that breathes (or sends them to the surface to gasp for air).

The dead zone is a giant over-fed fish tank. Too much of a good thing means death.

Each year as the farmers fertilizer their fields, the excess fertilizer washes down the Mississippi drainage basin (over 7,000 rivers, as shown in a graphic posted within the last few days on Fark). Ever year, a giant dead zone forms at the mouth of each of the world's great agricultural-industrial basin outlets--the Mississippi, the Rhine, the Bramaputra, the Ganges, etc.

These dead zones are the result of too much of a good thing just as much as the current Carbon cycle problem (aka climate change or global warming). There is a Nitrogen cycle problem and it produces not only a sizeable chunk of global warming gas but the dead zones.

The same thing happens in many lakes and streams throughout North America and the world.

Green algae is toxic and when you swim in it, you get nasty dermatological side effects. Some kinds of algal bloom (such as the infamous red tide) are toxic enough to kill fish and even humans without depriving them of oxygen.
 
2013-08-15 11:42:58 AM  
Because hurricanes go around in a circle.
 
2013-08-15 11:43:41 AM  
Droughts are one of the things you expect from climate change, even if the area affected by the drought is not warming, which might be the case in a few regions due to change in wind and water currents.

You can't attribute any one event directly to climate change (just as you can't attribute any particular roll of the dice to the fact the dice are loaded without the control of the roller or inadvertantly unbalanced). But you can find the fingerprints of man all over climate change in other ways. For example, the CO2 put into the atmosphere by various kinds of plants, or various kinds of fuel, can be detected by comparing isotopes with natural-source isotopes.

Plants and other living things preferentially use lighter carbon atoms, taking up more C12 than C13 or C14. Nonethess, the two radioactive isotopes of Carbon get taken up by living things. Thus it becomes possible to date biological organics with C14 dating, and also to tell many things about fossils and living organisms, such as what kind of food they ate. Different kinds of plants consume different amounts of C13 and C14, which means you can tell a grass-eater from a tree-leaf eater, a meat-eater from a vegetarian, and a long-dead tree from a living tree.

The longest dead living organisms on Earth are called fossil fuels. You can tell how long these dead forests, swamps, bogs and sediment deposits full of dead microorganisms have been dead by examining the ratios of isotopes of Carbon and other radioactive isotopes in them. Over time, there is less radioactive material in rocks, fossil fuels, fossils and organic remains.

You can thus finger Man rather than Nature for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Man's CO2 is older and "deader" in the radioactive sense than Nature's CO2 output.

If droughts mean fewer and smaller dead zones, good. That's a plus for somebody. It's an externality for everybody, because the person who pays is not the person who profits.

Climate change is an externality also. The people who profit from burning the fossil fuel are not the people who suffer the full price of burning it. The atmosphere is breathed by all, but owned by no one. We all pay for damage to it, but we do not all benefit from damage to it.

In case you think being an American makes you immune to the consequences of your actions, I remind you that the pollution from China, Japan, Korea, and South East Asia not only hangs over those countries in a brown smog cloud that can be seen from space, but blows over the Pacific and falls out over (mostly Western) USA and Canada.

If you are asthmatic and live here (I'm in Ottawa), the pollution that makes you gag comes from Chicago, but also from Shanghai and Tokyo.

Karma, dude. Karma. What goes around, comes around. This proves the Earth is a sphere and not a table top, because things fall off of table tops and nothing falls off of the Earth except things light enough to escape into space, like Hydrogen and Helium.

So the net effect of too much carbon (oxydized) and too much nitrogen (oxidized) is death and destruction, even if there are temporary and local benefits to be obtained from the production or consumption of these.

Plants breathe air. Idiots think this is some kind of answer to climate change science and they repeat it endlessly, even after you point out the fallacy of their implicit failed attempt to think.

But there is too much of a good thing--oxygen is a toxin in the right dosage, so are CO2 and NO2 and carbon monoxide and the poison of the Fugo fish.

The poison is in the dose, said Doctor Paracelsus, who was a genius and a jackass.

We need to change the way we do business and everything else, or we are ultimately poisoning ourselves with our own waste, even if some innocent people and organisms suffer early, hard and without profit or blame.
 
2013-08-15 11:44:38 AM  

ur14me: Global warming!

/amidoingitright?


Natural processes! Junk science!  Jeebus!
 
2013-08-15 11:57:53 AM  

Elegy: BMFPitt: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?

The Deepwater Horizon spill was so bad, it created Gulf Dead Zone decades before it happened?

Sounds like the work of Obama's time machine. GULFDEADZONEGATE!

Beat me to it.

Oh well, just for fun:

THE OIL SPILL.... IT'S TRAVELING... THROUGH TIME!

[i.imgur.com image 250x365]


Yes, it is going forward.

If you'd like to read a science fiction story with a time travel element and a climate change element, I recommend Benford's 1980 SF novel, Timescape.

Scientists in the future (1998) are facing ecological disaster on a global scale. The Earth is warming (but that's not the real problem--the real problem is that the dead zones, which are by then are humungous, have become air-borne killers because a certain fertilizer has mutated toxic algae in such a way they put out a toxic gas rather than just sucking up all the oxygen in the water. Mankind is for the trashheap of history if something is not done, and the future's only hope is tachyons (which at the time of writing were fashionable and believe to be able to travel back in time).

The Scientists have to get a message back to other scientists who are performing an experiment in the 1960s. If they fail, snake eyes, baby! That's all she wrote.

I don't want to give you too many spoilers, but one of the things I love about this novel is that it is one of the most realistic time travel novels in that there is no time travel, only communication, and that very limited.

You see, from the point of view of scientists in the 1960s, the message from the 1990s comes from a point in space on the path the solar system is following through space. It looks like a message from nowhere, and from space aliens, perhaps some kind of "lost in space" type of ship or satellite.

If you have ever thought deeply about time travel, you would know that not only does it involve travelling through time, it involves travelling through space because the Earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the Sun, which is plowing through space dragging the solar system with it, and which is also revolving around the Galactic core. All those spirals within spirals mean that even a time travel trip of one second would have to be calibrated carefully or you would end up inside a mountain or dropping into the Ocean when you blipped into existence at the destination time.

Cool.

And note how I managed to work global warming and time travel together with the original post about Obama's time machine.

Boy, do we need that time machine. GET UP OFF OF YOUR LAZY BLACK ASS MR. PRESIDENT AND GO BACK IN TIME AND CONVINCE MAGGIE THATCHER THAT BEATING GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT JUST A STICK TO BEAT THE COAL MINER UNIONS WITH!

And kick Viscount Monckton's ass while you are there.
 
2013-08-15 11:58:24 AM  
Because... people?

/DRTFA
/didn't need to....
 
2013-08-15 12:13:20 PM  

Speaker2Animals: J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.

Do yourself a favor and RTFA and you won't sound ignorant. This was going on long before the BP spill. And it's also happening in the Chesepeake and Lake Erie.


THIS.  Also...

www.goodcowfilms.com
/oblig
 
2013-08-15 12:56:34 PM  
I've seen the misinterpretation a few times in this thread so I thought I'd point it out. The algae and phytoplankton aren't consuming all the O2, it's when they die and decay (oxidize) that uses up the O2 in the water.
 
2013-08-15 02:51:48 PM  

Faraday's Child: I've seen the misinterpretation a few times in this thread so I thought I'd point it out. The algae and phytoplankton aren't consuming all the O2, it's when they die and decay (oxidize) that uses up the O2 in the water.


Well, the decay is caused by zoo-plankton.  Which makes it all seems very samey to use macro-organisms.
 
2013-08-15 03:06:39 PM  

Threadslayer: ur14me: Global warming!

/amidoingitright?

Natural processes! Junk science!  Jeebus!


My God, this is the most retarded Eco-disaster thread Fark has had in a long time.
 
2013-08-15 05:57:23 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom


Really?!? I thought I was stupid.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report