Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[juvenissun]

It's not reef building that's the issue, it's that the existing reefs are being destroyed.

Are they the same problem?

 

[Vene]

I told you I am not sure how much CO3 was lowered in seawater. The OP suggested it is serious enough to stop the growth of coral. I doubt it. I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it. However that does not mean I could find the data. I can do it just the same as you can do it. The search engine is available to all of us. I said the decrease could be less than 0.01%. If you do not think it is right, it is YOUR BURDEN to prove that it is wrong. Why should I spend time to find data to solve YOUR problem?

Stop shifting the burden of proof. Me and thaum have given mechanisms to explain a change of pH and the destruction of reefs. You have just made assertions so far (along with saying we're wrong without giving a bit of evidence).

Well, here is one. It took me 3 minutes. It is not good enough. But I think it might be sufficient for this occasion.

That doesn't talk about a reef environment. Coral reefs only form in vary shallow areas of the ocean. CO[sub]2[/sub] sinks, sure, but it sinks at the level where coral lives, it can't go deeper because there is soil in the way.

Are they the same problem?

No, they are not. If coral cannot form any more CaCO[sub]3[/sub] then the reef can't grow, but it doesn't shrink. If coral can form CaCO[sub]3[/sub], but it's dissolved faster than it can deposit CaCO[sub]3[/sub], then the reef is gradually destroyed. We know that the reef is shrinking, that has been directly observed (just like the change in pH has been directly observed), the question is why.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how science works, but usually when we state a guess we are more inclined to have come with some support for that guess. But whatever it is you do for a living may not require proof of any level.

Still, when you are talking to scientists please do try to have some support for something before you explicitly state it.

However that does not mean I could find the data. I can do it just the same as you can do it.

Then why do people have to beg you to provide some external support. Every single debate I've had with you on this board it wasn't until I literally begged for references or supporting data that bothered to 'toss off' something. This is no exception.

The link you posted says, what, exactly, about your point? It's an abstract that deals with carbonate levels during cold glacial periods. It mentions a "change in the biological pump" and it's potential role. But you have yet to address the present instance. In this case, it has been known since the late 1950's that "human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future" (Roger Revelle's famous quote during the time that he and Hans Seuss were investigating the ability of the ocean to take up the excess CO2 mankind was pumping into the atmosphere.)

The search engine is available to all of us. I said the decrease could be less than 0.01%. If you do not think it is right, it is YOUR BURDEN to prove that it is wrong.

OK, so now we know you aren't a scientist, and we know you've likely never taken a logic class. It is not the anyone's job to prove the negative of your claim. It is your job to provide ample evidence that the number you claim is a "hunch" for which you have "no support" (your own words, mind you) is true:

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

(In case you forgot what you said and why you said it).

Why should I spend time to find data to solve YOUR problem?

So your hunches are my problem? So do I need to go disprove magical fairies to the schizophrenic? Do I need to disprove the existence of an invisible nano-elephant in my refrigerator?

Where does it end?

I know, I know, you don't understand the logic or the lack of a need to "prove a negative" or anything like that. It's all beyond you. You also don't understand how scientists do their job or that you can't just say:

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

And expect people to disprove it to you. But do please, familiarize yourself with how real scientists will view your commentary.

Well, here is one. It took me 3 minutes.

Now, I know you also haven't learned anything from the current discussion either, but would you care to "map" this reference's points out to the current discussion? YOu are correct, it does contain discussions about carbonate and the biological pump, but remember, the "biological pump", is the suite of biologically mediated carbon cyclings in the ocean. Not independent from the environment of the oceans and may be affected by ocean acidification (SOURCE)

But interestingly during these glacial times the relative amount of carbonate appears to increase, so I'm still curious how you think this relates to the current issues around carbonate concentrations and reef robustness.

(This is why it's important to understand some of the science when you Google, not just post a link and sit back happy that you've made a point, you haven't. You've posted a link without any explanation of how you think it relates. Go back and re-read my posts for an example of how you integrate external reference information with an overall statement on the debate point. This is something one learns when one actually teaches stuff. This is how science teaching is done. You don't just get up in front of class and say "read the book" and walk away to get your paycheck.)

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how science works, but usually when we state a guess we are more inclined to have come with some support for that guess. But whatever it is you do for a living may not require proof of any level.

Still, when you are talking to scientists please do try to have some support for something before you explicitly state it.



Then why do people have to beg you to provide some external support. Every single debate I've had with you on this board it wasn't until I literally begged for references or supporting data that bothered to 'toss off' something. This is no exception.

The link you posted says, what, exactly, about your point? It's an abstract that deals with carbonate levels during cold glacial periods. It mentions a "change in the biological pump" and it's potential role. But you have yet to address the present instance. In this case, it has been known since the late 1950's that "human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future" (Roger Revelle's famous quote during the time that he and Hans Seuss were investigating the ability of the ocean to take up the excess CO2 mankind was pumping into the atmosphere.)



OK, so now we know you aren't a scientist, and we know you've likely never taken a logic class. It is not the anyone's job to prove the negative of your claim. It is your job to provide ample evidence that the number you claim is a "hunch" for which you have "no support" (your own words, mind you) is true:


(In case you forgot what you said and why you said it).



So your hunches are my problem? So do I need to go disprove magical fairies to the schizophrenic? Do I need to disprove the existence of an invisible nano-elephant in my refrigerator?

Where does it end?

I know, I know, you don't understand the logic or the lack of a need to "prove a negative" or anything like that. It's all beyond you. You also don't understand how scientists do their job or that you can't just say:



And expect people to disprove it to you. But do please, familiarize yourself with how real scientists will view your commentary.



Now, I know you also haven't learned anything from the current discussion either, but would you care to "map" this reference's points out to the current discussion? YOu are correct, it does contain discussions about carbonate and the biological pump, but remember, the "biological pump", is the suite of biologically mediated carbon cyclings in the ocean. Not independent from the environment of the oceans and may be affected by ocean acidification (SOURCE)

But interestingly during these glacial times the relative amount of carbonate appears to increase, so I'm still curious how you think this relates to the current issues around carbonate concentrations and reef robustness.

(This is why it's important to understand some of the science when you Google, not just post a link and sit back happy that you've made a point, you haven't. You've posted a link without any explanation of how you think it relates. Go back and re-read my posts for an example of how you integrate external reference information with an overall statement on the debate point. This is something one learns when one actually teaches stuff. This is how science teaching is done. You don't just get up in front of class and say "read the book" and walk away to get your paycheck.)

Your problem is that you think I am doing an academic report here. Give a break. I am here to chat and to relax. Who care to give any reference when one is not working?

Well, the point of my linked reference is that it give some data about the variation of CO3 concentration in the ocean. I don't care about the range of temperature, I only look how much could the CO3 change in seawater. I guess it does not give an explicit value. But one could get an idea from it. The point is: natural variation of CO3 in seawater is much greater than the one induced by recent changed of CO2 which is the alleged cause.

My idea IS your burden if you want to argue about it. Otherwise, just say something else and do not ask me to prove it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your problem is that you think I am doing an academic report here.

No, my problem is I thought you understood how science is discussed.

You clearly have no idea. You think that saying:

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

Means you've provided some information.

Give a break. I am here to chat and to relax.

So making unsubstantiated claims is how you relax? Sorry if you don't know this, but some of us actually care about science enough to do it every hour of every day.

Again, you don't have to do science, clearly, nor do you have to care. But do be prepared that if you make an unsubstantiated claim that you yourself don't have any support for (which means to me, you don't actually care enough to check it out before you say it) then be prepared to have it contradicted if contradiction is called for.

Who care to give any reference when one is not working?

Then I recommend you admit you don't care enough about your own claims to support them. Makes me wonder why you would even make the claim in the first place unless your whole point is to maybe get someone to buy your stuff without questions. Sorry, but that isn't science.

Well, the point of my linked reference is that it give some data about the variation of CO3 concentration in the ocean.

Did anyone say Carbonate cannot be altered in the ocean???

Are you able to follow the details of the discussion???

I don't care about the range of temperature, I only look how much could the CO3 change in seawater.

Yeah, and so what???

I guess it does not give an explicit value. But one could get an idea from it.

Again, you appear to want someone else to do the thinking and comprehension stuff for you. If you can't support your own ideas explicitly then woe be unto your statements. You will get pushback every single time.

The point is: natural variation of CO3 in seawater is much greater than the one induced by recent changed of CO2 which is the alleged cause.

Now, again, I see language is not your skillset either. So when you say "much greater than", it is incumbent upon you to LINE UP THE NUMBERS AND SHOW THIS POINT.

It isn't up to me to guess what is going on in your head.

My idea IS your burden if you want to argue about it. Otherwise, just say something else and do not ask me to prove it.

Let's get this straight: You clearly don't understand the chemistry involved, you don't even know the actual numbers involved. It is not up to me to "disprove" anything you say because you've said next-to-nothing.

If you have something to say it. Believe me, you are in the company of many people here who can help you with the chemistry and the science.

I recommend if this is how you relax, you will get some discomfort from those of us who understand the science and can do better than a few random Google searches.

You see, what you appear to do is come up with some mushy, ill-understood concept and when pushed really hard will move yourself to do a Google search on one or two terms, find something that sorta-kinda fits in with your mush-idea and plop it out and hope other people will do the "thinking" part for you.

We are not here to help you organize your disorganized thoughts. That isn't what we as scientists are required to do (save the psychologists and psychiatrists who may be around here). We are here to lay out the numbers and supporting evidence for claims.

If you "relax" by making unsubstantiated claims, then be prepared to get push-back.

I will not, I repeate, NOT "give a break" as you say. You will get push-back where push-back is called for. And guess what, I will almost always provide support for my claims. Not just:

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

 

[juvenissun]

No, my problem is I thought you understood how science is discussed.

You clearly have no idea. You think that saying:



Means you've provided some information.




So making unsubstantiated claims is how you relax? Sorry if you don't know this, but some of us actually care about science enough to do it every hour of every day.

Again, you don't have to do science, clearly, nor do you have to care. But do be prepared that if you make an unsubstantiated claim that you yourself don't have any support for (which means to me, you don't actually care enough to check it out before you say it) then be prepared to have it contradicted if contradiction is called for.



Then I recommend you admit you don't care enough about your own claims to support them. Makes me wonder why you would even make the claim in the first place unless your whole point is to maybe get someone to buy your stuff without questions. Sorry, but that isn't science.



Did anyone say Carbonate cannot be altered in the ocean???

Are you able to follow the details of the discussion???



Yeah, and so what???



Again, you appear to want someone else to do the thinking and comprehension stuff for you. If you can't support your own ideas explicitly then woe be unto your statements. You will get pushback every single time.




Now, again, I see language is not your skillset either. So when you say "much greater than", it is incumbent upon you to LINE UP THE NUMBERS AND SHOW THIS POINT.

It isn't up to me to guess what is going on in your head.



Let's get this straight: You clearly don't understand the chemistry involved, you don't even know the actual numbers involved. It is not up to me to "disprove" anything you say because you've said next-to-nothing.

If you have something to say it. Believe me, you are in the company of many people here who can help you with the chemistry and the science.

I recommend if this is how you relax, you will get some discomfort from those of us who understand the science and can do better than a few random Google searches.

You see, what you appear to do is come up with some mushy, ill-understood concept and when pushed really hard will move yourself to do a Google search on one or two terms, find something that sorta-kinda fits in with your mush-idea and plop it out and hope other people will do the "thinking" part for you.

We are not here to help you organize your disorganized thoughts. That isn't what we as scientists are required to do (save the psychologists and psychiatrists who may be around here). We are here to lay out the numbers and supporting evidence for claims.

If you "relax" by making unsubstantiated claims, then be prepared to get push-back.

I will not, I repeate, NOT "give a break" as you say. You will get push-back where push-back is called for. And guess what, I will almost always provide support for my claims. Not just:

So, please, say I am wrong but with a reason. I will be enjoy to hear it. If I think you are right, I will thank you. This is the way I relax.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So, please, say I am wrong but with a reason.

Don't be disingenuous, Zippy, I didn't come up with the number you threw out. But I have more than sufficiently addressed the points you raised in the chemistry earlier in the discussion.

Don't paint it as if I have been the one who hasn't brought up points.

I will be enjoy to hear it.

No you won't. I've posted so much chemistry in this thread and you simply ignore it. Don't go and make it sound like you are weighing all the data and responding in kind.

If I think you are right, I will thank you.

I don't care what you think. You don't understand the chemistry or the science apparently. So what you think is of exactly no value to me. That's why I want you to support YOUR POINTS WITH DATA.

This is the way I relax.

By spouting stuff you yourself don't even care to verify first?

I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

So if you don't think it worthwhile to verify what you yourself post, why on earth should anyone anywhere believe a thing you say, ever?

 

[juvenissun]

Don't be disingenuous, Zippy, I didn't come up with the number you threw out. But I have more than sufficiently addressed the points you raised in the chemistry earlier in the discussion.

Don't paint it as if I have been the one who hasn't brought up points.



No you won't. I've posted so much chemistry in this thread and you simply ignore it. Don't go and make it sound like you are weighing all the data and responding in kind.



I don't care what you think. You don't understand the chemistry or the science apparently. So what you think is of exactly no value to me. That's why I want you to support YOUR POINTS WITH DATA.



By spouting stuff you yourself don't even care to verify first?



So if you don't think it worthwhile to verify what you yourself post, why on earth should anyone anywhere believe a thing you say, ever?

I did read every word of your argument in chemistry. While most (if not all) of what you said are true, but either most (if not all) of them are irrelevant to the point of discussion, or the argument became too complicate to give one simple reply. I don't have a habit to break down a lengthy argument and responded line by line. That is why I ignored most of them but just pick up ONE to continue. To be fair, I think I did give a reply to almost all your arguments.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I did read every word of your argument in chemistry. While most (if not all) of what you said are true

What did I say that was untrue? I know you may not like having your errors pointed out, but I am ok with it if I made an actual error.

please point out the error.

, but either most (if not all) of them are irrelevant to the point of discussion, or the argument became too complicate to give one simple reply.

No, it became too "complicate" for you to give a reply of any substantive value. Sorry if you are confused. I'm also sorry if the chemistry that was presented by myself and others was too much for you.

I don't have a habit to break down a lengthy argument and responded line by line.

No, let's be clear, you don't have a habit of responding substantively and with facts to an argument. You, if you post any citations or facts at all, will prefer to post a link without explaining how it might relate directly to your point, and only after much cajoling.

No, you prefer the "say it and ferget it" approach. You just make a claim which you don't even care enough about to verify before you say it, then expect people to believe it.

That is why I ignored most of them but just pick up ONE to continue.

Which one are you "picking up" here? Is it the part about carbonate chemistry? Well, you were shown the realtive abundance of carbonate in sea water as a function of pH and how that mechanism works specifically. Was it the biochem stuff you vaguely mentioned? Well, another posted pointed out the biochem pathways for carbonate sequestration to make tests and shells. Or was it the carbonate levels in glacial periods? Which point? Because usually there's someone on here who responds to the science and so you have to move onto a different point because you seldom seem equipped to handle the science in detail.

That's how we know exactly what kind of "scientist" you are. It's not by what you say, but by what you have difficulty saying.

To be fair, I think I did give a reply to almost all your arguments.

Oh, so you think your "replies" were compelling in some way? You didn't seem to be able to follow the carbonate discussion, even in the light of the carbonate species graph as a function of pH. Seems to me you claimed the relative amount of carbonate would drop some arbitrary amount which you yourself claimed you had no support for. It was a "hunch".


Now, granted you did dig up a reference that mentioned carbonate levels in the ocean and mentioned a link during glaical periods. But all you did was post the link to the abstract with no real discussion. So I'm guessing you didn't really see how it would specifically map out to your argument. Maybe if you'd stick with one point for long enough or fleshed out an idea in detail it would help.

Please tell me you don't actually believe you are convincing us you are a scientist of any sort.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, granted you did dig up a reference that mentioned carbonate levels in the ocean and mentioned a link during glaical periods. But all you did was post the link to the abstract with no real discussion. So I'm guessing you didn't really see how it would specifically map out to your argument. Maybe if you'd stick with one point for long enough or fleshed out an idea in detail it would help.

Hey, I am not playing school teacher here. I give my student a reference and I am expecting he can digest it and draw conclusion from it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Hey, I am not playing school teacher here. I give my student a reference and I am expecting he can digest it and draw conclusion from it.

that doesnt excuse you from having to explain the point you are making. i dont know how familiar you are with writing papers but when i reference primary research i dont just give the citation and expect ppl to know what ideas im deriving from it, i must summarize it in my own words and use it in the context of whatever point im making. references are a tool, not a crutch.

 

[Vene]

Hey, I am not playing school teacher here. I give my student a reference and I am expecting he can digest it and draw conclusion from it.

You mean your single, irrelevant reference?

 

[juvenissun]

that doesnt excuse you from having to explain the point you are making. i dont know how familiar you are with writing papers but when i reference primary research i dont just give the citation and expect ppl to know what ideas im deriving from it, i must summarize it in my own words and use it in the context of whatever point im making. references are a tool, not a crutch.

Like I said, that illustrated the difference between a student and a teacher. A teacher has better things to do.

 

[Vene]

Like I said, that illustrated the difference between a student and a teacher. A teacher has better things to do.

And yet you have no problem spending time here. You're nothing but a hypocrite. You want us to disprove what you claim (with no evidence), but you don't disprove anything we present (disagreeing is not disproving). You claim to be a scientist and a teacher and seem so proud of it, until somebody wants to know your credentials. You come to a board discussing science, and then you give no science in your posts, just hunches that you admit you won't (can't) support. Do you or do you not have something meaningful to contribute here?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Hey, I am not playing school teacher here. I give my student a reference and I am expecting he can digest it and draw conclusion from it.

that doesnt excuse you from having to explain the point you are making. i dont know how familiar you are with writing papers but when i reference primary research i dont just give the citation and expect ppl to know what ideas im deriving from it, i must summarize it in my own words and use it in the context of whatever point im making. references are a tool, not a crutch.

Like I said, that illustrated the difference between a student and a teacher. A teacher has better things to do.

And you are acting inappropriately as either. your actions border on troll. once again references are a tool not a crutch so use them as such.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Since Juvenissun is having difficulty in summarizing his point and explaining the relevance of the reference he posted, I’ll take some time to puzzle it out for him (and myself).

(I honestly don’t believe he understands his own point enough to explain it, so I’ll do this to help him and to help myself understand this better.)

The OP states that ocean acidification is causing difficulties in reef “cementation”. Now the linked article does mention “dissolution”, which is possible but more unlikely at the pH of most ocean water, but the linked article also makes the important point:

"These results imply that coral reefs of the future may be eroded faster than they can grow," Manzello says.

So we have two key points:

1/Ocean CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] is high enough that carbonate-fixing organisms cannot maintain sufficient access to carbonate ion to make the necessary cement/shells/reef structures

2/Reef structures dissolving at a lowered pH

Then Juvenissun stated:

The increase of CO2 in air would have a host of consequences. The coral reaction is only one of them. These consequences are not surprising at all. They may be new to human beings. But it is nothing new to the earth.

Juvenissun has not yet addressed either point directly, but later states:

If the decrease of pH in the seawater is indeed due to the increase of CO2 in the air, then it is another very strong reason for the insignificance of CO2 for the global warming. The seawater is highly buffered in pH. If dissolved CO2 is the cause of carbonate dissolution by the lowering of pH (this idea itself is questionable), then the CO2 in the air should either be stabilized or decrease. I did not calculate, but I think there is not enough CO2 in the air to do that.

Now Juvenissun has raised a valid point that CO2 causing a decrease in pH will result in dissolution. Again, this is far less likely at the pH we are talking here (7.7 or so), but not impossible. The solubility of calcite in seawater can occur at higher pH but it is less likely. But another wrinkle that was brought up is that calcite and aragonite solubility are a function of depth as well. (HERE)

Juvenissun then states:

Both of your points are not likely to be applied in the environment of tropical coral reef.

However, I do believe "some" coral reefs are under erosion. However, the cause of erosion is NOT as simple as CO2 and global warming. And the point is that the OP is a false alarm due to the lack of understanding in geochemistry and hydrogeology.

So now he’s dealing with what is probably the more important portion of the topic; EROSION of the reefs.

This is not to say that a drop of 0.1 pH units (which I’ll remind Juvenissun is a logarithmic scale in base 10) cannot have a significant effect. Remember, the ocean is, as Juvenissun himself points out a buffered system. Perhaps Juvenissun has never worked with a buffer, but those of us who have know that you can shift a buffer pH but it usually means you are near or beyond ”swamping” the buffer. That’s not a good thing.

Now this shift of 0.1pH units may be within the tolerance of the buffer right now, but it is clearly disturbing.

But let’s return to the key factor: EROSION.

In this post I discussed the erosion issue more in-depth.

So it becomes necessary for Juvenissun to bring in some other type of chemistry (since he has barely touched the appropriate chemistry currently under discussion.) Now he brings in BIOCHEMISTRY in this post

In this post I attempt to outline the importance of the CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] concentration, hoping to clean up one topic before we move onto something different. The usual Creationist mind is incapable of sticking to one topic long enough to clarify anything, or they simply try the “Creationist Whack-a-mole” game and keep shifting the discussion in hopes of finding an area where the people they are talking to don’t know the details and then they can feel like they’ve made a point.


Thankfully Vene, in this post lead the way and gave a simplified explanation of the importance of carbonate in the biochemical pathway of the marine calcifiers.

So we are back on track with the CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] topic.

Vene asked Juvenissun what could be responsible for shifts in the ocean pH to which Juvenissun gives us a new “hypothesis”:

How about ice melting.

It might be a common feature in all previous interglaciation periods.

Interglacial ice melting! Now we’ve got something to work with. But note how Juvenissun is just “throwing something out” without applying any numbers or estimates or even a citation. But wait…

But in the meantime, Juvenissun is going to discuss the role of carbonate in shell building and it’s relative rates versus erosion:

OK, I was careless. But my point is: CO3 will NOT decrease so much so that coral could not find any in the seawater to use. I would say the amount of CO3 decrease is minimum, some like 0.01%?

So now Juvenissun is throwing out the concept of “concentration” in a chemical discussion. Too bad “concentration” is often very important in chemistry.

Then Juvenissun states:

I told you I am not sure how much CO3 was lowered in seawater. The OP suggested it is serious enough to stop the growth of coral. I doubt it. I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it. However that does not mean I could find the data. I can do it just the same as you can do it. The search engine is available to all of us. I said the decrease could be less than 0.01%. If you do not think it is right, it is YOUR BURDEN to prove that it is wrong. Why should I spend time to find data to solve YOUR problem?

-------

Well, here is one. It took me 3 minutes. It is not good enough. But I think it might be sufficient for this occasion.

He is admitting he has no support for his “hypothesized” decrease in carbonate concentration in the ocean. It was just a hunch. But finally he provides a link to an article.

This is now getting interesting, but note, again, how he fails to explain how the linked article is related to his point. This looks almost too much like he literally did a google search on carbonate, glacial, ocean and concentration and puked the link out. If he did understand it (and if he indeed has ever taught a class) he’d take the time to explain it as we all did the carbonate chemistry. I personally like explaining my points not only to move the discussion forward but also so that I can ensure that my ideas are clear.

So now, let’s look at this article:

This article is an hypothesized explanation for the impact of decreases in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] on low and high latitude biological pump actions and the concomitant changes in CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] in the water column.

Note how the article itself states what we chemists have been pointing out repeatedly:

because the carbonate ion concentration is inversely proportional to CO2.

The article goes on to reconstruct the gradient of CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] concentration during a glacial period, becoming more steep. In other words during the glacial period the carbonate concentration decreased faster as one went down the water column during this glacial period than we see today. In addition they pin an 80 micromol/kg concentration increase in CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup] in the surface waters during the glacial period.

The explanation the authors appear to favor is:

Mechanisms capable of explaining the increased vertical gradient in carbonate ion concentration include reduced vertical diffusion and thermocline ventilation…and/or a stronger/more effective biological pump.

Finally they summarize thusly:

the simplest explanation is that changes driven by the steeper glacial thermocline keep more carbon out of the surface ocean during cold glacial times.

So, since Juvenissun has been reticent to explain his points in detail (whether because he is trolling or simply incapable of understanding the science) I’ll have to assume that Juvenissun thought that glacial periods would account for shifts in ocean pH. However the article doesn’t discuss this overall pH shift directly, nor does it discuss impact on reef builders, it does discuss the steepness of carbonate concentration gradient with depth and the impact of a shifted thermocline on this concentration. Now, note how the authors of the article also state:

Recognizing that over thousands of years the deep ocean carbonate ion concentration is essentially invariant due to the buffering capacity of calcium carbonate that lines the seafloor

I’m afraid I’m still unsure what Juvenissun’s point is. I really don’t understand what he thinks this says in support of his contentions against anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing a measurable shift in ocean pH and its attendant impact on reef builders ability to maintain against erosion.

I’ll freely admit my inability to fully understand your point, Juvenissun. I would hope you would be forthright enough to explain it to one as dumb as myself. I have provided quite a few explanations of the carbonate chemistry and I freely admit this chemistry is often complicated, but please lay out, once and for all, what it is specifically and in detail what you think is going on and why the chemistry Vene and I and the others on this thread have laid out for you is not as important as your hypothesis, whatever that is.

Thanks in advance.

 

[juvenissun]

Wow, who am I to deserve so much of your time? Let me summarize the idea presented in my arguments:

1. The current increase of CO2 in the air and the current warming of the earth are "nothing new" in the history of the earth.

2. The relationship between the recent increase of CO2 in air and the small lowering of pH in the seawater (a questionable statement, see below), is not clear.

3. The ocean is a complicate system. pH, CO3 etc. all varied horizontally and vertically across time. The lowering of pH at one locality recorded in one experiment does not mean the lowering of pH of the whole ocean.

4. The erosion (?) of coral is not likely due to the decrease of CO3 in the whole ocean. In my opinion, it is more likely due to the change of local or regional coastal conditions. The case study is premature to be used as an illustration for the effect of global warming.

5. The increase of CO2 in the air is true. The global warming is true. But the relationship between the two is not clear. To my opinion, they are not related.

Minor and personal points:

1. This issue is not a simple one. I was not shifting my focus in arguments, but was trying to raise the attention to all significant factors that might be involved.

2. At the current level of discussion, there is no need to quote any reference for the idea. The one I found in 3 minutes on public resources is just a demo on the variation and the cause of variation of CO3 in seawater. It means, CO2 in the air is not the only reason for CO3 variation, and the degree of variation may not be significant to coral.

3. This issue is NOT my concern. I am NOT going to spend time to search and to study and to teach. I am simply trying to give a little hard time to those who think they knew something for sure.

 

[juvenissun]

what it is specifically and in detail what you think is going on and why the chemistry Vene and I and the others on this thread have laid out for you is not as important as your hypothesis, whatever that is.

OK, if you like to dig more into the concentration of CO3 in the seawater, I may try to get into the details of it with you. I am serious (not just chatting). If you don't want to spend time on it (I will ask you to share the work), don't make me do it. I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason, in the middle of serious academic discussion.

The goals are: 1. Find out the distribution of [CO3] in ocean across space and time. 2. Then estimate the degree (and the pattern?) of its variation.

I will not get into any discussion of coral. May not even involve the issue of global warming.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, if you like to dig more into the concentration of CO3 in the seawater, I may try to get into the details of it with you. I am serious (not just chatting). If you don't want to spend time on it (I will ask you to share the work), don't make me do it. I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason, in the middle of serious academic discussion.

Please, Juvenissun, don't be a jerk. If you look back over this thread you'll see that I on numerous occasions have posted the requisite chemistry, chemical reactions, species populations with pH and my own explanations of what those things mean.

If you dare to call me chicken in a discussion where you have:

1. Posted one picture (unreferenced) about delta [sup]13[/sup]O that had what to do with the actual discussion other than to show change in something over time?

2. Posted one link in support of your point and then steadfastly refusing for several posts to explain how you thought it would relate to your point only to ultimately wave your hands and claim it meant things are "complicate"

3. Offered numbers for which you yourself claimed there was no support

And you think I might chicken out, well then, I think you need to bring some.

The goals are: 1. Find out the distribution of [CO3] in ocean across space and time. 2. Then estimate the degree (and the pattern?) of its variation.

Let me add one very important one:

3. Factors that affect [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup]] in ocean water. That means consideration of:

3a. Ksp for the various reactions in the carbonate buffer system and ocean water

3b. Appreciation of the role of the Revelle Buffer Factor

3c. Application of the various species contents at various pH's

I'm assuming you are abundantly familiar with all of these aspects since I've already presented numerous posts on them in this thread.

And one other thing of value to a further discussion:

No simply throwing your hands up and saying "it's complicate!" and assuming you've made a point. Everything is complicated. You have to make a valid point and explain it in detail.

Vene and I have already shown you the factors affecting [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup]] in ocean water, please explain how those are problematic if at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Please, Juvenissun, don't be a jerk. If you look back over this thread you'll see that I on numerous occasions have posted the requisite chemistry, chemical reactions, species populations with pH and my own explanations of what those things mean.

If you dare to call me chicken in a discussion where you have:

1. Posted one picture (unreferenced) about delta [sup]13[/sup]O that had what to do with the actual discussion other than to show change in something over time?

2. Posted one link in support of your point and then steadfastly refusing for several posts to explain how you thought it would relate to your point only to ultimately wave your hands and claim it meant things are "complicate"

3. Offered numbers for which you yourself claimed there was no support

And you think I might chicken out, well then, I think you need to bring some.

I did not and have not called you chicken.
However, I take your reply as a no to my suggestion. That is fine with me.