http://www.newsweek.com/oxygen-disappearing-worlds-oceans-alarmingly-rapid-pace-771406

An article in Newsweek comments on new research just completed in relation to depletion of oxygen in Oceans and Estruaries. Warming water does not hold as much oxygen as colder water.

Quote:

"Updated | The ocean is running out of oxygen at a rapid speed—and the depletion could choke to death much of the marine life these waters support. A sweeping review published Thursday in Science documented the causes, consequences and solutions to what is technically called “deoxygenation.” They discovered a four-to-tenfold increase in areas of the ocean with little to no oxygen, which researchers say is alarming because half of Earth’s oxygen originates from the ocean."

The research was published in:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240

Also, in relation to coral bleaching:

http://www.newsweek.com/coral-bleaching-warming-ocean-temperatures-starving-reefs-771104

This might seem tangential. But it raises questions for me.
Who reviews books? Should a gay man review a book about a gay man's life? OR should it be done by a woman? And should feminists review each others' works? Seems to me there's a cosy plot at work: you say nice things about my book, and I'll do the same. Check out the reviews in The Guardian, or Sydney Morning Herald and Age.

Academia these days is very cosy, with everyone wanting more grants and more approval from Grants Offices, and peers. That might be good in some cases. But who makes sure that the academics tell the truth? How many Departments of Men's Studies are there? Who is game to say "no, I don't agree with some of the things some of the feminists say?" And no, I don't agree with the far-out ideas of Mark Latham and others, often asserted in a a wild angry way.Who is game to say , e.g., archaeology is a waste of public resources? (or any other discipline, for that matter). I'm aware that something arcane, like Pure Maths or Philosophy, may have powerful importance that we can't measure today. Worth a thought.

Waverley

Climate science goes back to the 1820s with Fourier.
Climate scientists employ Physics and Chemistry, and research is based on empirical evidence; apart from modelling. Glaciologists, Marine Scientists etc regularly do field work collecting data; for example, ice cores, photographs taken from satellites.

In 1856, Eunice Foote presented a paper in relation to experiments she had completed in relation to CO2:

http
://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tyndall experimented with various gases a few years later.

Can you prove there are no greenhouse gases?
What temperature would Earth be showing without greenhouse gases?
Can you show that CO2 does not pick up radiated warmth?
What gases are expelled through using fossil fuels?

Go through denier arguments against anthropogenic climate change and you will find some of the views posited are mutually exclusive.
Opposition to climate scientists by lay people is a recent phenomena fuelled by opinion being presented by denier Agencies. Fossil fuel companies came to a realisation that their profits would be impacted by climate science and began to fund denier Agencies just a few decades ago. There is quite a lot of research that has been carried out in relation to the funding of denier groups funded by fossil fuel companies.

Spencer Weart (Physicist and Historian) provides a very extensive history in relation to climate change, which has been very extensively referenced:

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

Ant,

You still haven't addressed the issue of the bogus reports!

Perhaps all the temperatures weren't collected 100% properly but the measurements are not likely to be that far out. Considering nearly 500 people died of heat when Sydney was only 500 000 people shows that it was not simply a measurement error.

Again, I am not disputing that there is climate change, the dispute is how much it is changing and the methods required to counter it

Shadow Ministry

Medical science has developed since the 1890s in relation to dealing with heat stroke.
The Victorian era attitude to dress code could have been a factor.
We are now given warnings in relation to heat extremes and take precautions.

The accuracy of temperature recording was also a matter.

When Penrith had a reliably measured temperature of 47.3 C, was there a big jump in deaths or hospitalisations through heat stroke?
Lower temperatures can be more deadly when associated with high humidity ... wet bulb temperature.

What was the humidity rating in relation to the 1896 heat wave (wet bulb temperature)?

Ant,

For starters, Penrith was not considered part of Sydney and even Parramatta was mostly farm land, so the temperature would have been measured closer to the coast which makes the 1896 temperature far higher. Secondly, I saw no figures for humidity in Penrith which is likely to be lower than closer to the coast. Any way you twist it, the 1896 event was far more extreme than the latest hot spike