Remember me
▼ Content

Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification



Page 5 of 5<<<345
RE: Google "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties"10-05-2022 00:23
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Google "Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties"

More proof of sealover's scientific illiteracy.

"Buzzword fallacy. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented."

It's just disgusting, isn't it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Target audience buzzword challenge. Chemoautotrophic bacteria.
...deleted excess noise...

Buzzword fallacy. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.
10-05-2022 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC)

Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity.
[quote]sealover wrote:
It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC).

Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity.

Buzzword fallacy. Babble.
sealover wrote:
Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material.

The cation exchange sites may be permanent negative charges arising within the structure, due to isomorphous substitution of lower charge cations within the crystal structure of clay minerals.

The cation exchange capacity may be the variable charge that arises when carboxylic groups or phenolic groups on solid phase organic acids deprotonate.

Cation exchange capacity is a direct measure of how much cation charge the solid phase can adsorb. This is also how much proton charge they can neutralize, as protons exchange for adsorbed cations.

This is just a preview, really.

Gibber-babble.
sealover wrote:
We'll need to get into CEC a lot more as we discuss the importance of soil organic matter, and the consequences of its loss.

In a typical soil, about half the CEC arises from clay minerals, and the other half from organic matter.

When poor management causes loss of soil organic matter, it does more than release a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
It causes the soil to be able to hold fewer nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium.

Loss of soil organic matter causes associated nutrient cations to be lost as well.

Void conclusion. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2022 03:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

What a valuable contribution to the debate!

How do you know? Were you there?

Polly wanna cracker?

You are not debating.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2022 08:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:How do you know? Were you there?

You never answered the question.

sealover wrote:What a valuable contribution to the debate!

You are the one responsible for lacking in value-added contributions. It is your lack of answers to perfectly valid questions that kills the discussion dead.
RE: for Roj47514-08-2022 09:13
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
for Roj475

If this is of interest, we can discuss it using the kind of "buzzwords" that scientists actually understand.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.

Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.

Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.

If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
RE: "Magic" power of CO2 - formation of a very weak acid19-08-2022 11:51
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
"Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid

The three most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

CO2 has a "magic" power that the more abundant gases do not have.

Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon (a little bit) can dissolve in water, as can CO2.

But CO2 is the only one that forms acid when in water. H2CO3, or carbonic acid.

Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward.

There is another gas, present in the atmosphere at concentrations far tinier than CO2, that also forms acid when dissolved in water. Sulfur trioxide, SO3, combines with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4.

There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water.

Sulfuric acid is very strong, and it readily deprotonates into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions.

Carbonic acid is very weak, and it does not easily deprotonate into separate hydrogen ions and bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". Sulfate will not accept a proton to become sulfuric acid unless the pH is EXTREMELY low, well below 1.

Bicarbonate and carbonate provide virtually all the alkalinity in sea water.

These weak acid anions will readily accept a proton or two to become carbonic acid, even at pH well above 7. This buffers sea water against pH change, keeping it a little above pH 8 despite large additions of acid.

But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.

It is the large depletion of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), which makes carbonate ions much less available to organisms for shell formation.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity to the ocean is simply to better manage them.

Rising sea level and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.

As sea level rises, the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced. There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments. Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts. Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.

When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid. These "acid sulfate soils" develop very low pH. They also export a lot of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter to surface waters. Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity for the sea as groundwater discharge now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water.
19-08-2022 13:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Im a BM wrote:
"Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid

The three most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

CO2 has a "magic" power that the more abundant gases do not have.

Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon (a little bit) can dissolve in water, as can CO2.

But CO2 is the only one that forms acid when in water. H2CO3, or carbonic acid.

Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward.

There is another gas, present in the atmosphere at concentrations far tinier than CO2, that also forms acid when dissolved in water. Sulfur trioxide, SO3, combines with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4.

There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water.

Sulfuric acid is very strong, and it readily deprotonates into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions.

Carbonic acid is very weak, and it does not easily deprotonate into separate hydrogen ions and bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". Sulfate will not accept a proton to become sulfuric acid unless the pH is EXTREMELY low, well below 1.

Bicarbonate and carbonate provide virtually all the alkalinity in sea water.

These weak acid anions will readily accept a proton or two to become carbonic acid, even at pH well above 7. This buffers sea water against pH change, keeping it a little above pH 8 despite large additions of acid.

But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.

It is the large depletion of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), which makes carbonate ions much less available to organisms for shell formation.


Excellent post.
20-08-2022 03:13
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.
RE: "Shellfish" - calcium carbonate versus chitin20-08-2022 04:55
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".
20-08-2022 05:45
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
They migrate to the shallows every November and change out their shells.Its called the white run and they do not go to pots but munch on the limestone reefs that abound in the South West.Sometimes fishers will put their pots on the sand in front of the reef and I have seen them traveling and they hook one antenna on the back leg of the cray in front and form a sort of train.If the first one runs in to the pot there is a chance the whole lot will go in.Diving is very popular and where I live you can go of the shore and snare them.The bag limit is 8 per person/day and they get huge.The ocean here is alive and all the corals are flourishing.I am aware it is a human response to wish everything to be broken but it just isn't
20-08-2022 18:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Im a BM wrote:Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Another good post.
20-08-2022 18:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...
RE: Chemoautotrophic bacteria turn CO2 into organic carbon21-08-2022 11:58
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate"

Photosynthesis is the most important source of organic carbon, but not the only source.

Not talking about some whacko theory that coal or oil formed from anything other than ancient organic carbon laid down by photosynthetic organisms.

Chemoautotrophic bacteria were turning carbon dioxide into organic carbon long before photosynthesis evolved.

Methanogenic bacteria, for example. 4000 million years ago there was a LOT of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the earth's young crust was constantly emitting hydrogen gas.

Methanogens combined the hydrogen with the carbon dioxide to form methane, and get a little metabolic energy in the process. Methane is organic carbon.

Perhaps a more modern example would make the point more clear.

Many chemoautotrophic bacteria are known as lithophiles. They use oxygen to oxidize minerals to get energy. The minerals include all variety of sulfides, ammonia, ferrous iron or Fe(II), manganese(II), arsenic(III), and a long list of others.

These oxidation reactions generate sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ferric iron or Fe(III), arsenic(V), and the oxidized form of all the others (selenate, phosphate, borate, molybdate, etc.)

But no organic carbon. These bacteria have to take CO2 and reduce it to organic carbon, using some of the energy they get from mineral oxidation.
21-08-2022 16:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
Im a BM wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate"

Photosynthesis is the most important source of organic carbon, but not the only source.

Not talking about some whacko theory that coal or oil formed from anything other than ancient organic carbon laid down by photosynthetic organisms.

Chemoautotrophic bacteria were turning carbon dioxide into organic carbon long before photosynthesis evolved.

Methanogenic bacteria, for example. 4000 million years ago there was a LOT of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the earth's young crust was constantly emitting hydrogen gas.

Methanogens combined the hydrogen with the carbon dioxide to form methane, and get a little metabolic energy in the process. Methane is organic carbon.

Perhaps a more modern example would make the point more clear.

Many chemoautotrophic bacteria are known as lithophiles. They use oxygen to oxidize minerals to get energy. The minerals include all variety of sulfides, ammonia, ferrous iron or Fe(II), manganese(II), arsenic(III), and a long list of others.

These oxidation reactions generate sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ferric iron or Fe(III), arsenic(V), and the oxidized form of all the others (selenate, phosphate, borate, molybdate, etc.)

But no organic carbon. These bacteria have to take CO2 and reduce it to organic carbon, using some of the energy they get from mineral oxidation.


So, even 4000 million years ago, CO2 was life essential food for the planet, in your speculative opinion. Since, we don't travel through time to observe, measure, and take samples.

As for our current, more significant situation on earth, every living thing on earth depends on CO2 for food. The human population continues to grow, despite covid-19, AR-15s, and Fentanyl. We go to extremes to protect endangered species. Rescue injured, and sick animals. Even screw around with DNA, to create new critters. Unfortunately, we clear a lot of land of vegetation, for many reasons. We remove a lot of water plants as well, when they become inconvenient.

The biggest threat do to fighting the technology/industrial crisis (climate change) is destroy our essential food source. When the planet is starving for CO2, we all are going to be starving for food. I'm sure scientist will have a synthetic means of providing dietary carbon for humans, maybe a few other species. All life provides some function in nature.
22-08-2022 02:42
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Lobsters certainly do have shells, the lobster shell is called a carapace


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-08-2022 02:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Swan wrote:Lobsters certainly do have shells, the lobster shell is called a carapace

My daughter's lobster traded for this carspace:

RE: CO2 - Food for the farms and acid for the sea26-08-2022 01:33
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...




CO2 is certainly the "food" from which organisms synthesize organic carbon.

Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have certainly increased the productivity of many terrestrial plants - those that grow on land.

Most land plants employ C-3 metabolism in photosynthesis. This involves capturing a CO2 molecule by the Rubisco enzyme, to then be reduced into organic carbon. When CO2 is too low, Rubisco accidentally captures oxygen molecules instead of CO2. Known as "photorespiration", this oxygen is passed by Rubisco to attach and burn up an organic carbon atom to make CO2. This costs the plant sugar that it already made.

Forests, in particular, have increased productivity in response to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now "aggrading" more by accumulating organic carbon.

Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not.

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Although sea water pH remains above 8, because it is so well buffered with bicarbonate alkalinity, the alkalinity has been significantly depleted. This diminishes the bioavailability of carbonate ions for shell formation.

Here, the word "shell" is to describe hard structures made of calcium carbonate.

Clams, for example, and all the other shelled mollusks.

Coral reefs, for example, a bit more loosely defining what we call a "shell".

Even barnacles, which are crustaceans. Like all arthropods, crustaceans have an exoskeleton "shell" made of chitin. Chitin is very different from calcium carbonate, and does not require carbonate ion to form. But the barnacle also has a "shell" structure that it builds around itself which is made of calcium carbonate.

Yes, CO2 is food for farm plants, and we certainly would NOT want its concentration in the atmosphere to somehow drop so low that it diminishes productivity.

CO2 is also acid for the sea, and we certainly WOULD want to somehow mitigate its demonstrable adverse impact on marine ecosystems.

And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding.

Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather event also causes crop losses as untimely early blossoms later freeze in the early spring, or fruit freezes on the trees during record cold nights.

Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures.

Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface.

There is no physical possibility that any measure humans take could reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to cause famine because it is too low to support crops. I mean, if that was a genuine concern anyone had.
26-08-2022 02:10
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere
RE: "Humans add 3%" = "30 percent increase in acidity"?26-08-2022 05:36
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere



"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.

From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units. This may not seem like much, but the pH is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

I would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

In contrast, pure water at pH 7 only has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, or 0.000005 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Sea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered.

But that buffering is being depleted, and it impacts the availability of carbonate.

Maybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

But just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

I imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.
26-08-2022 06:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2551)
Sqealover,
Your ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims continue to insult your intelligence.

Sqealover wrote:
And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding.


Please show any data you can find or manufacture that shows world grain production decreasing.
You cannot. Grain production continues to increase leaps and bounds every decade. Stop being so stupid. You are not the thmarteth perthon in any room.

Sqealover wrote:
Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events


You have yet to even attempt to explain how CO2 effects the weather, let alone extreme weather. I have asked you specifically and all I get is crickets, until you think enough time has passed and we all forgot how stupid you are. *Newsflash* We haven't forgotten.

Sqealover wrote:
Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures.


Texas didn't anticipate global warming would result in frigid temperatures. Got it. You still have yet to explain how CO2 makes it simultaneously warmer and colder. Please give it a go. I've got popcorn and I'm all ears.
...and how does "heat residence time" fit into this fairytale? Are there no "greenhouse gasses" in Texas?

Sqealover wrote:
Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface.


You do know that lying doesn't help you add to your audience of one?
A few stats from orange grove country...

The coldest weather temperature ever officially recorded in Lakeland, Florida is 15 degrees which occurred on January 27, 1905.

The hottest weather temperature ever officially recorded in Lakeland, Florida is 104 degrees which occurred on three consecutive days from June 15-17, 1911.

The coldest temperature ever recorded in the state of Florida is -2 degrees, which occurred on February 13, 1899, in Tallahassee.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in the state of Florida is 109 degrees which occurred on June 29, 1931, in Monticello

So, can you please tell why you believe extreme temperatures are something new to Florida? or anywhere? You really think ANYONE here is stupid enough to fall on their knees to worship your bullshit?

Dumbass wrote:
Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not.


Total bullshit. Corn yield increases substantially with additional CO2. The plant becomes more efficient at retaining it's water ESPECIALLY at higher temperatures. More water is more grain. *News flash* Grain is food.

Please quit plucking the bullshit out of your ass and sharing with the rest of us. The pollution is really quite unnecessary.
Edited on 26-08-2022 07:08
26-08-2022 11:15
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Sealover wrote
"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.
Humans are responsible for 3% of the carbon cycle. 97% is natural
26-08-2022 16:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
squeal overFrom the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

Thank you for illuminating the scientific illiteracy underpinning NOAA's propaganda.

There is no such thing as "ocean acidification" in the first place.

NOAA Propaganda:"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units.

This is exactly why no rational adult should ever lend any credibility to anything published by NOAA.

NOAA Propaganda: so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

The ocean has no acidity. You know this. Why did you post this?

squeal overI would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

Nope. You are well aware that NOAA is using carefully crafted language to most effectively confuse, and ultimately lie to, the public at large. You are well aware that NOAA's propaganda is entirely intended to push a political agenda, and you have decided to assist in those efforts.

squeal overThe average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

Possibly correct, but the moment you willingly threw your credibility out the window in order to aid NOAA push their political agenda, you made your words suspect as being false and deceptive.

squeal overSea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered. But that buffering is being depleted,

As usual, you have offered no reason whatsoever any rational adult should believe you or believe that you are attempting to inform instead of attempting to deceive.

Why should any rational adult believe that the whole of the ocean's water is somehow changing in some discernible way except in becoming more base via natural geological activity?


squeal overMaybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

I just spoke with Mother Nature and yep, she's as happy as ever ... and she wishes you would stop pretending to speak for her.

squeal overBut just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow counted all the earth's wild animals either when you were born or just last week? ... and where's Swan to tell you to take your meds?

Did you know that for every six wild polar bears that existed when you were a child, ten exist today?

squeal overI imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.

Mother Nature is ecstatic with the polar bear population, and she is very happy in general.

.
26-08-2022 17:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Im a BM wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.



Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".


Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...




CO2 is certainly the "food" from which organisms synthesize organic carbon.

Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have certainly increased the productivity of many terrestrial plants - those that grow on land.

Most land plants employ C-3 metabolism in photosynthesis. This involves capturing a CO2 molecule by the Rubisco enzyme, to then be reduced into organic carbon. When CO2 is too low, Rubisco accidentally captures oxygen molecules instead of CO2. Known as "photorespiration", this oxygen is passed by Rubisco to attach and burn up an organic carbon atom to make CO2. This costs the plant sugar that it already made.

Forests, in particular, have increased productivity in response to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now "aggrading" more by accumulating organic carbon.

Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not.

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Although sea water pH remains above 8, because it is so well buffered with bicarbonate alkalinity, the alkalinity has been significantly depleted. This diminishes the bioavailability of carbonate ions for shell formation.

Here, the word "shell" is to describe hard structures made of calcium carbonate.

Clams, for example, and all the other shelled mollusks.

Coral reefs, for example, a bit more loosely defining what we call a "shell".

Even barnacles, which are crustaceans. Like all arthropods, crustaceans have an exoskeleton "shell" made of chitin. Chitin is very different from calcium carbonate, and does not require carbonate ion to form. But the barnacle also has a "shell" structure that it builds around itself which is made of calcium carbonate.

Yes, CO2 is food for farm plants, and we certainly would NOT want its concentration in the atmosphere to somehow drop so low that it diminishes productivity.

CO2 is also acid for the sea, and we certainly WOULD want to somehow mitigate its demonstrable adverse impact on marine ecosystems.

And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding.

Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather event also causes crop losses as untimely early blossoms later freeze in the early spring, or fruit freezes on the trees during record cold nights.

Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures.

Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface.

There is no physical possibility that any measure humans take could reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to cause famine because it is too low to support crops. I mean, if that was a genuine concern anyone had.

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with it to 'change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-08-2022 17:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Argument from randU fallacy.
duncan61 wrote:
Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water.

Nope. Most just stays dissolved CO2.
duncan61 wrote:
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Nope. Water is still H2O, just as it's always been. Salt in the sea is still NaCl just as it's always been.
duncan61 wrote:
So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

Argument from randU fallacies. Making up numbers isn't going to work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: 0.1 pH units - Apologies to NOAA26-08-2022 20:22
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
0.1 pH units - Apologies to NOAA

I misquoted NOAA by accidentally adding an extra zero.

The pH shift over 200 years has been about 0.1 pH unit, NOT 0.01 pH units.

Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere



"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.

From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units. This may not seem like much, but the pH is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

I would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

In contrast, pure water at pH 7 only has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, or 0.000005 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Sea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered.

But that buffering is being depleted, and it impacts the availability of carbonate.

Maybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

But just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

I imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.
27-08-2022 01:27
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Name the animals?
27-08-2022 01:28
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Argument from randU fallacy.
duncan61 wrote:
Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water.

Nope. Most just stays dissolved CO2.
duncan61 wrote:
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Nope. Water is still H2O, just as it's always been. Salt in the sea is still NaCl just as it's always been.
duncan61 wrote:
So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

Argument from randU fallacies. Making up numbers isn't going to work.


I was taking the wee wee you dumb ****


duncan61
27-08-2022 03:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
duncan61 wrote:Name the animals?

I'm pretty sure one was named "Fluffy" ... and of course there are Ralph and Frank. I'm pretty sure that the Shamoo that squeal over knew as a kid was a different what from the one today.

Actually, I don't think that really accounts for all of them.

squeal over, could you fill in the missing names?

.
28-08-2022 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Im a BM wrote:
0.1 pH units - Apologies to NOAA

I misquoted NOAA by accidentally adding an extra zero.

The pH shift over 200 years has been about 0.1 pH unit, NOT 0.01 pH units.

Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere



"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.

From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units. This may not seem like much, but the pH is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

I would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

In contrast, pure water at pH 7 only has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, or 0.000005 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Sea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered.

But that buffering is being depleted, and it impacts the availability of carbonate.

Maybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

But just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

I imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. It is not possible to measure the number of species on Earth. Pure water is not alkaline. 2320 times zero is still zero.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 28-08-2022 22:40
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean19003-10-2022 01:26
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
CO2 ocean uptake30622-02-2021 04:08
The Atlantic Ocean Is Growing2530-01-2021 03:11
Historic ocean acidification6411-08-2020 02:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact