Experts say that 400 PPM CO is making the oceans acidic, and dissolving the carbonate shells of shellfish.
This is utter bullshit. The Mesozoic shellfish below lived at 1,800 PPM CO2 – more than four times higher than current levels. Oceans are buffered by alkali rock like limestone and basalt, and can’t become acidic.
Climate experts are scoundrels who are paid to lie, while pretending to be actual scientists.
The Mesozoic shellfish below lived at 1,800 PPM CO2 …
Yeah, but look at it now …
What happens to the massive numbers of plankton/diatoms in the lakes and oceans with increased CO2 levels? (they are responsible for ~25 % of the O2 in the atmosphere) If diatom density is increased significantly in response to changes in dissolved CO2 and they in turn convert silicates into to glass (to form their shells) during photosynthesis would not that lock up vast quantities of carbon in their shells as they die and sink to the ocean floor.I recall a similar phenomenon discussed with terrestrial plants where the leaf to root ratio changes (diminishes) as CO2 increases locking up carbon in their root system(top soil)?
I seriously doubt the mathematical climate models have any idea what the effect of these feedback loops is. Pete Kremers MD
Dude…that was like a long time ago. Like the Benghazi era.
LOL. “At this point, what difference does it make?”
There’s your death spiral!
+1
Oceans are buffered by alkali rock like limestone and basalt, and can’t become acidic.
…
exactly…..where do they think the carbon comes from?
The relentless accumulation of Limestone means the eventual extinction of C3 plants (95% of plants) unless some way can be found to replenish CO2. Hmmmm.
it was the C3’s that lowered it…limestone is too slow
There are ways the CO2 could be replenished even without having to burn up all our fuel to do it. There are reserves of liquified CO2 in deep oceans and these can actually be inexpensively brought to the surface. I’ve mentioned this previously.
so, you’ve never heard of the word saturation
Lake asks if I have never heard of saturation. Certainly I have. And what does that have to do with my comment?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/
Perhaps there are some things Lake has never heard of.
Latitude … sorry. (I had lake of CO2 on my mind)
I’ve got an idea. Let’s call it “carbon capture”. ;-P
Ooops. That was supposed to be under Neal S.’ post, RE:, retrieving reserves of liquified CO2 in deep oceans…
I am suggesting “carbon liberation”. Some years from now, things may get a bit cooler. People may wish that CO2 really was as effective a greenhouse gas as they had been told. Even if CO2 does not warm as much as claimed, it really does help plants to grow without having to use as much water as they would otherwise have to. Liberating large volumes of CO2 without much expense may come in quite handy.
I like the liberation theme. And I like your idea. Of course I was kidding about carbon capture.
A possible means for replenishment of CO2, or CO2 liberation and without reducing atmospheric Oxygen to gain the increase in CO2.
What if a pipe was constructed and lowered in the ocean, and water was pumped out. The pipe has perforations in the last few sections that wind up nearest the ocean floor. Some weights are also attached to the bottom end of the pipe via some cables. Some floats are attached near the top end of the pipe, but below the ocean surface.
When the bottom end of pipe hits a portion of the ocean floor where there are reserves of liquefied CO2, we start pumping water out of the top end of the tube which is now well enough above the surface such that swells do not put water back into it as we begin to pump the water out.
Since the liquefied CO2 is denser than water, I would expect the fluid level in the pipe to begin to fall below sea level as more liquid CO2 is moving up the pipe.
At some point the rising level of liquid CO2 would reach a point where the pressure become less than that required to keep it liquid and a change of state will likely occur. Bubbles of CO2 will rise and there may be enough of them to carry some of the water up and out of the top end of the pipe.
I also expect that if we keep pumping long enough, we will eventually start getting a stream of CO2 coming from the top end of the pipe. I also imagine we can stop pumping, and that the stream will continue on its own as long as there are liquid CO2 reserves at the bottom end of the pipe, and the perforations do not get plugged up with debris.
Such deep ocean CO2 pipes that spew out CO2 without requiring any additional ongoing power, could increase the atmospheric CO2 levels. It might even be possible to harness some power from their operation.
It would continue on its own. There are CO2 vent pipes in two deep lakes in Africa.
CO2-phobics would be freaked out at such an idea. We’re living in such a propaganda-controlled era.
Yes, as Disillusioned points out, a very similar operation is used in Africa to de-carbonate lakes so that they will not experience a catastrophic outgassing and kill people in the surrounding villages. For the deep sea pipe, no need to use pumps, even to start it. The only reason why the liquid there is stable is because it is barely above zero Celsius and the pressure is enormous. Just stick a heater coil in the lower end of the pipe. As soon as the bubbles form, the pressure at that end will also drop and the pipe become self-pumping — at least as long as the CO2 lasts. Heck, instead of a heater coil, just put a fair sized lump of lithium with a slow-dissolving water soluble coating on the end of the pipe. In fact, let’s just use a lump of plutonium for heat on the end. That’ll upset the faux-Greenies even more…
LOL, Jason. I’m not so sure I like your plutonium idea. A safer, simpler option may be close to where CO2 accumulates and stores – find a way to transport the hydrothermal energy from fissure vents close by from where the CO2 originates.
Once set up, yes, it would operate on its own. I envision buoyed geysers at the surface, to compensate for tides. Massive depths, though. Such an idea put into action would be quite an undertaking. But doable.
Jason suggests a heater coil at the bottom of the deep ocean pipe might do.
Jason, have you ever watched water in a deep pot boil? For deep enough pots, water at the bottom near the heat source can reach boiling point and bubbles form. As the bubbles rise, they exchange energy with the cooler water above and shrink and vanish without ever reaching the top.
You might have to inject enough heat with your coil to warm that portion of the column within the tube up to a level where the pressure is low enough to permit the bubbles to continue without collapsing. You would also have to do this despite heat-loss through the pipe/tube walls to surrounding ocean. Depending on many factors, it may well be much less power to mechanically pump as I have suggested.
Another advantage of the mechanical pumping, is the confirmation that liquid CO2 is being drawn into the pipe. Since the CO2 is denser at depth, the water level at the top of the pipe will start to drop below sea level as the CO2 is drawn up. If the water level does not drop, then liquid CO2 is not being drawn into the pipe.
Hey Neal S! “Depending on many factors, it may well be much less power to mechanically pump as I have suggested.”
Yes, in the real world, the pump might be better — but if I had to bet a small sum (small enough that I wouldn’t be hurt too badly if I lost!) I think that probably a relatively small heater would work. Here is why I think that. Your example of boiling water raises a good point, but in some significant ways the CO2 is different. The main reason is that the liquid phase of CO2 is only barely possible at the conditions of the deep sea. Decrease the pressure by a small amount (insert hand waving here, but I am too lazy to look up the phase chart), say ten or twenty percent and the liquid CO2 will flash to gas. Likewise, raise the temperature a small amount (insert more hand waving here, too!) say five degrees C and it flashes to gas even at the high pressure. There is still the question of the rising CO2 bubbles dissolving into the sea water as they ascend, but whether they do or not, they will still be lowering the density of the column as they rise up.
Using your boiling water scenario, a better example would be this. Imagine a pressure cooker with hot water at one atmosphere pressure inside it. Instead of a weighted pressure relief valve, you have a 10 meter tall column of water. Heat the pressure cooker just a bit more and the increased temperature will begin to blow steam into the column — which lowers the column pressure and before you know it, you have a blowout. Likewise, you could leave the pressure cooker sitting at one atmosphere and pump out a bit of the tall column, which once again gives us rising steam, which lowers the column pressure, which gives us a blow out again. Either heat or pumping will work, and once it starts it will continue by itself until the pressure cooker has blown its fluids.
Anyway, I am more than willing to use a pump, and you may very well be right that it is more practical, but I suspect that some fairly modest heating would start a self-perpetuating pump. This is one of those questions that would be fun to test in the real world. Know any billionaires with a lot of curiosity? 🙂
I just realized…. the pressure cooker example I mentioned with a column of water for pressure containment. Did I just describe a geyser?
http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/2OTEC.jpg
100-Megawatt Power Plant via Variations in Ocean Temperature
Add a bit of ammonia and you don’t need the pumps and can even get a bit of power out of it.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-Megawatt-Power-Plant-via-Variations-in-Ocean-Temperature
SST’s are so high, and the oceans have become so acidic, that buoys are dying off!
“numerous buoys have ceased to function over the years”
http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/13/spiegel-noaa-embarrassment-over-four-years-of-failed-el-nino-forecasts-numerous-buoys-have-ceased-to-function/#sthash.JGTLz60x.sVIYo8x3.dpuf
It’s worse than we though!
CO2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to the claimed effects of global warming/climate change !
Warm water – less CO2 solubility !
Acid pH in water – less CO2 solubility !
The atmosphere on the other hand has no constraints on how much CO2 can be “dissolved” if you like. Thousands of ppm – really no limit other than total co2 available – is easily possible.
Ocean acidification by atmospheric CO2 is utter bullshit !
Interesting point Rosco. Would be interesting to see some charts on the temperature/CO2 saturation ‘balance’ (I’m guessing this may change based on depth/pressure also) and acidity/CO2 solubility.
“It’s like they don’t know the basics of acidity…” (sorry, it was right there)
It is a critical ASSumption of the CAGW farce.
When you start digging you find all sorts of ASSumptions and down right lies.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Between these two articles: GAVIN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
I can’t stand to look at Gavin. When he got up and walked out of the interview because he wouldn’t dare even be in the same room with Roy Spencer, that did it. Any last bit of respect that I may have had for him, vanished in that one moment. He’s a coward who hides behind his government job, which appears to be cooking books.
Does anyone have any idea about how Gavin and the rest did as students while they were working for their degrees? Did they excel? Did they just skate by?
My current opinion is that they are knowingly dishonest about their manipulation — but is it possible that they really are so incompetent that they do not realize how bad their science is?
I know — their personal talents do not affect the quality of the CO2 theory one way or the other, but as a human and a citizen, I do wonder about how the CAGW fraud can be supported so strongly in the light of so much contrary evidence.
Judging by their current actions, I would venture to guess that they did alot of cheating. 😉
There is no evidence that during the Mesozoic that reefs formed north or south of those that exist in the present day. I wonder what the sea food would have been like then. Though fishing would have been an adventure even if some dino didn’t come along and snap you up what you caught might. That specimen, if edible, would have fed a village if man had been around at the time.
If the oceans gets a little bit less alkalic, they are still alkalic and therefore the use of the word acidification is completely wrong.
Yep. Besides the pH scale is HS level science stuff and thus anyone with at least a little education should know that before something can pass from Alkaline or base to acidic or vice versa, it must first become neutral at some point.
Reblogged this on Liberalism is Trust Fucked with Prudence. Conservatism is Distrust Tainted with Fear and commented:
A Mustignore Misleading Headline of vague abstruse substance.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell. What a Jackass?
Wazzamatter, son? Afraid to shit with the big dogs?
A Mustignore Misleading Headline of vague abstruse substance.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell. What a Jackass?
Wazzamatter, son? Afraid to shit with the big dogs?
Can’t you tell the poor things shell was dangerously THIN just like Rachel Carson’s eggshells??
Years back when I was a kid into aquariums, there was a trick to get good coral growth in salt water setups: Bubble in CO2 as that would make a healthy environment for algae growth that the coral needed to thrive.
This knowledge made me very suspicious then the claim came in that increased CO2 was going to kill coral and experiments were done to prove it. I later found out one of the more press ballyhooed experiments didn’t involve increasing CO2. They just dumped carbonic acid into the tank.
Another researcher repeated the test (reported in the NY Times of all places) by bubbling in CO2. The result was a slight reduction in pH and an increase in coral growth.
Simples.. The coral creatures feed on algae and plankton.
More CO2 means more algae and plankton.. means better coral.
“I later found out one of the more press ballyhooed experiments didn’t involve increasing CO2. They just dumped carbonic acid into the tank.”
In at least one of the papers they didn’t even dump in carbonic acid. They dumped in hydrochloric acid.
Yes. Hydrochloric acid. Lower the pH without including the extra CO2 that was supposedly being tested for. They really did.
Good read re acidification : http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
I’m sure most sensible people would realise that for millions of years, somewhat acidic rivers and somewhat acidic rain have fed our oceans.
Yet they remain steadfastly alkaline !!!!
I had a discussion with an acquaintance of mine regarding historical conditions. He said that we can’t really go by historical records because we weren’t around to make accurate measurements, but he is absolutely sure that humans are causing the climate to change because it’s much more different than the past; you know, the one we can’t trust historical data for.
He should probably stick to lecturing in physiology.
GRUMBLE, WordUnimpressed is still censoring my comments. (Put in so it is not a duplicate)
……………..
Toss your buddy these:
Instructions were written and given out to the observers in 1882.
https://archive.org/stream/instructionsforv00unitrich#page/20/mode/2up
What is never mentioned is the original system had two separate thermometers. One mercury for the high temperature and an alcohol thermometer for the minimum temperature. No mention is made of the switch to the Six min/max thermometer. I went hunting for the reason.
Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918 mentions the Six thermometer and says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers mentioned above.
That book is a real eye opener for anyone who thinks the old measurements were no good. See page 68 through 77
Another book The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891 also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph. It is a continuous recording instrument.
This passage gives an indication of how careful these ‘amateurs’ were:
On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html
WordUnimpressed REALLY REALLY hates John Kehr’s website I can not get any form of the URL to post so please search title.
This one is a real kick in the teeth to the CAGW conjecture.
Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly from Chem Engineer, John Kehr
A much longer comment on the whole temperature adjustment mess:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fixing-the-past-at-the-ministry-of-truth/#comment-477742
Easy way to shut the “ocean acidification” crowd up, just ask them, “What was the pH during the Jurassic when CO2 was 2000 ppm, or when life began during the pre-cambrian when the CO2 level was 100,000 ppm? (10%)”
Facts don’t shut them up. When they cannot logically address facts, they demonize somebody, prevaricate, change the subject, throw up straw man arguments, serve up red herring.