Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[thaumaturgy]

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.

HA! You are such a ...well, I can't say it here. You suggested by your very statements you wouldn't accept it if I chickened out...well, zippy, I am not chickening out.

I have already in post after post after post after post in this thread alone, presented more science than you have presented in thread after thread after thread.

So, bring it on. You want an accounting of oceanic carbonate, start with this:

Measurement of boron isotope compositions in species of planktonic foraminifera that calciÞed their tests at different depths in the water column are used to reconstruct the pH proÞle of the upper water column of the tropical ocean. Results for five time windows from the middle Miocene to the late Pleistocene indicate pH-depth proÞles similar to that of the modern ocean in this area, which suggests that this method may greatly aid in our understanding of the global carbon cycle.
SOURCE: SOURCE: Science 20 November 1998:
Vol. 282. no. 5393, pp. 1468 - 1471
​

​

What are the drivers for carbonate speciation?

The pH of seawater plays an important role in the ocean-atmosphere carbon budget by controlling the speciation of dissolved carbonate species, affecting the depth of the carbonate compensation depth (CCD), and determining the partitioning of gaseous carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere. As these parameters have varied in the past, the ability to determine the pH of the paleoceans would be of considerable interest to oceanographers as well as climatologists.​

SOURCE: ibid.

This helps establish the drivers on the system. Now let's get down to some numbers.

THIS LINK provides a table of global carbonate budgets and fluxes from various marine sources.


In addition, the same link contains this important section:

Coralline algae, corals, and coccolithophorids have shown reduced calcification under increased pCO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]. In corals, this appears to be a response to reduced CO[SIZE=-2]32-[/SIZE] concentration, rather than to pH or some other carbonate species (Langdon in press). Surface ocean CO[SIZE=-2]32-[/SIZE] is expected to drop about 30% under doubled pCO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]. Additionally, a potential shift in the phytoplankton community favoring non-calcifying organisms, as a result of projected changes in CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], has been suggested (Riebesell et al. 2000). (SOURCE)

(Emphasis added)

So now the ball's in your court. You bring a challenge to a scientist, expect that the real scientist won't chicken out. You didn't even need to worry that I might.

What do you have?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let's look a bit closer at the DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) in the ocean.

A quick revisit of the "species" as a function of pH:

A few key points:

1. Due to the biological pump, DIC is about 10% less in surface waters than deep waters.​
   
   [*]
   Because there is not much biomass in the ocean (unlike the terrestrial biomass), higher CO2 in the ocean has almost no stimulatory effect on marine photosynthesis. Therefore, there is no direct effect of increasing CO2 on the strength of the biological pump.​
   ​
   ​
   
   [*]
   The biological pump will play no role in the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 unless the strength of this pump increases for other reasons, such as climate-induced change in the rate of up-welling of nutrients.​
   ​
   (SOURCE)​

The Revelle Buffer Factor explains another key point about the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC:

A doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will not cause a doubling of the total dissolved inorganic carbon, DIC, at equilibrium. Instead it results in an increase of only ~ 10%. This low increase is due to the dissociation of CO2 and the simultaneous change of pH (see discussion of the Revelle factor).(ibid)

DIC:
DIC is defined in oceanography as "Dissolved Inorganic Carbon" and its concentration is equal to:

[CO[sub]2[/sub]] + [HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup]] + [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]]

Normally the relative proportions of these are: 1:175:21

(ibid)

When CO[sub]2[/sub] enters the seawater it undergoes the following reactions:

CO[sub]2[/sub] + H[sub]2[/sub]O --> HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] + H[sup]+[/sup]

The HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] further dissociates thusly:

HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] --> H[sup]+[/sup] + CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]

Now, we've already gone over a lot of this previously...well I should say I've already gone over this, you didn't really bother with any of the chemistry.

Let's revisit some data from THIS reference (again, one I already introduced to the discussion, but I'm wondering if you read any of it...)

Note on page 4, the table:

pCO[sub]2[/sub] values during

Glacial period: 180 microATM
Pre-industrial: 280 microATM
Current: 380 microATM

Now look at the changes at those times for [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]]

Glacial: 279 micromol/kg
Preindustrial: 222micromol/kg
Current: 186micromol/kg

See the relationship? As you increase CO2 concentration in the water, the chemistry drives the elimination of carbonate because of the buffering capacity of the ocean. This is the crux of the "ocean acidification" discussion.

Sure these things change over time but the chemistry doesn't change. It is not likely that the Ksp for any given chemical reaction is changing over time.

You can change the equilibrium positions with temperature and depth, so solubility of carbonates will change with depth (hence the previous discussion, again, which I brought up, not you, of the CCD; the calcite compensation depth).

So, you've got a lot of the chemistry presented to you, and you've got numbers on the global carbon budget and fluxes in the ocean as well as the requisite chemistry (which I will agree can be quite complicated), so what point do you wish to make?

I don't want you to chicken out and I know you won't. I mean you wanted me not to chicken out, so I know you have no reason to do so.


​

 

[juvenissun]

HA! You are such a ...well, I can't say it here. You suggested by your very statements you wouldn't accept it if I chickened out...well, zippy, I am not chickening out.

Very good. Appreciate it. I hear you said that you "will not" chicken out. Well, this would be a fun exercise anyway.

I need to use a little time to 1. digest your chemical data, 2. search for directions (more geology oriented). 3. set up a directory (my computer) to organize all data. So, bear with me for a little while. It would be better to set up another thread for this more in-depth discussion. I don't think many people will be interested in visiting that thread after a few posts.

I thought about how to show you any PDF files I would find from science database (it might be quite a bit). You said your wife can access to one. Is it really a convenient practice to you (if so, I would just give you the source)? If not, I might try to open an account on one of the blog server to link them. I have never done it this way before. Hope it will work.

So, hang on. I will be back. This game is different. It won't be quick, but it will last.

 

[juvenissun]

HA! You are such a ...well, I can't say it here. You suggested by your very statements you wouldn't accept it if I chickened out...well, zippy, I am not chickening out.

OK, Just let you feel what the game is going to be like. I quickly picked a few references from database. They sound interesting and might be worth to browse in detail. This is just a brief scan on what's available so a better defined question can be set. My selections are geology oriented, if you like to pull it more toward chemistry (it seems there is already a lot of chemistry in these articles), you may give your suggestion.

Again, if you do not want to spend time to play the game, you may pull out at this time (and I will stop bothering you). I am not familiar with this topic either. But I have high interest (for the sake of both creation and science) in knowing more.

---------

Flood, P.G. (2001) The ‘Darwin Point’ of Pacific Ocean atolls and guyots: a reappraisal. Galeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology 175: 147-152

Kamber, B.S., Webb, G.E. (2001) The geochemistry of late Archaean microbial carbonate: Implications for ocean chemistry and continental erosion history. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 65:2509-2525

Liu, L. (2004) The inception of the oceans and CO2-atmosphere in the early history of the Earth. Earth Planetary Science Letters 227: 179-184

Locklair, R.E., Lerman, A. (2005) A model of Phanerozoic cycles of carbon and calcium in the global ocean: Evaluation and constraints on ocean chemistry and input fluxes. Chemical Geology 217:113-126

Matsumoto, K., Broecker, W.S., Clark, E., McCorkle, D.C., Martin, W.R., Hajdas, I. (2001) Can deep ocean carbonate preservation history inferred from atmospheric pCO2 account for 14C and %CaCO3 profiles on the Ontong-Java Plateau? Earth Planetary Science Letters 192: 319-329

Morse, J.W., Mackenzie, F.T. (1998) Hadean Ocean Carbonate Geochemistry. Aquatic Geochemistry 4: 301-319

Thomas, H., Ittekkot, V. (2001) Determination of anthropogenic CO2 in the North Atlantic Ocean using water mass ages and CO2 equilibrium chemistry. Jour Marine System 27: 325-336

Tyrrell, T., Zeebe, R.E. (2004) History of carbonate ion concentration over the last 100 million years. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 68: 3521-3530

Weber, M.E., Pisias, N.G. (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of biogenic carbonate and opal in deep-sea sediments from the eastern equatorial Pacific: implications for ocean history since 1.3 Ma. Earth Planetary Science Letters 174: 59-73

Zeebe, R.E. (1999) An explanation of the effect of seawater carbonate concentration on foraminiferal oxygen isotopes. Geochimica cosmochimica Acta 63: 2001-2007

Zhang, J., Wang, P., Li, Q., Cheng, X., Jin, H., Zhang, S. (2007) Western equatorial Pacific productivity and carbonate dissolution over the last 550 Kyr: Foraminiferal and nannofossil evidence from ODP Hole 807A. Marine Micropaleontology 64: 121-140

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, Just let you feel what the game is going to be like. I quickly picked a few references from database.

Bravo. You posted some references. Give that man a Klondike bar. So what?

I'm hoping you'll make a point and support it with data. If you like, I'd be more than willing to just post references and links too.

They sound interesting and might be worth to browse in detail.

Yes.

This is just a brief scan on what's available so a better defined question can be set. My selections are geology oriented, if you like to pull it more toward chemistry (it seems there is already a lot of chemistry in these articles), you may give your suggestion.

Marine carbonate chemistry is, indeed, chemistry. I don't know where you got your geology degree but where I got mine we had some chemistry requirements. Now, of course, I have taken a lot more chemistry than most geologists and have extensive experience in chemistry but if you have difficulty with the chemistry I'll do my level best to explain it as it relates to geology.

Again, if you do not want to spend time to play the game, you may pull out at this time

The more you keep offering me an out, the more I begin to suspect it is you who wants an out? Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Just present some science we'll move on. Stop with this rattling.

(and I will stop bothering you). I am not familiar with this topic either.

"either"?? You presume quite a bit here, my friend. I have already told you explicitly in this thread that I spent a year working for a major East Coast oceanographic research facility as an oceanographic chemical technician.

Now I will be honest and say that carbonate chemistry of the oceans is not an easy topic for me. But it helps me focus my recent efforts to understand it. You see, recently I was named, along with several other people, as a question writer for an ocean sciences academic bowl competition. This has helped me to focus on learning and re-learning the oceanography.

So, while you will keep on with your attempts to "let me off the hook", believe me, there is nothing I want less than to be let off the hook.

I am literally drooling over the opportunity to discuss the science. And as I've abundantly shown on this and many other threads, I am more than capable of dealing with the science in detail, and not just rattling off a list of references.

But I have high interest (for the sake of both creation and science) in knowing more.

Good.

Flood, P.G. (2001) The ‘Darwin Point’ of Pacific Kamber, B.S., Webb, G.E. (2001) The geochemistry of late Archaean microbial carbonate: Implications for ocean chemistry and continental erosion history. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 65:2509-2525

Liu, L. (2004) The inception of the oceans and CO2-atmosphere in the early history of the Earth. Earth Planetary Science Letters 227: 179-184

Locklair, R.E., Lerman, A. (2005) A model of Phanerozoic cycles of carbon and calcium in the global ocean: Evaluation and constraints on ocean chemistry and input fluxes. Chemical Geology 217:113-126

You know, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the exact same chemical reactions with the exact same K[sub]sp[/sub]'s are in play as we've already discussed. I bet, if anything, the relative abundance of the various reactants or the depth of the thermocline may be about the only things to change. Oh, yes, and the biological pump.

But again, the "I" in DIC is still going to follow the same chemistry.

Matsumoto, K., Broecker, W.S., Clark, E., McCorkle, D.C., Martin, W.R., Hajdas, I. (2001) Can deep ocean carbonate preservation history inferred from atmospheric pCO2 account for 14C and %CaCO3 profiles on the Ontong-Java Plateau? Earth Planetary Science Letters 192: 319-329

Can I "impress" you here? I actually got to briefly meet W.S. Broecker at a former job.

Tyrrell, T., Zeebe, R.E. (2004) History of carbonate ion concentration over the last 100 million years. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 68: 3521-3530

This one looks especially interesting. Please tell me what it tells you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Looking more closely at the reference you ran across:

Tyrrell, T., Zeebe, R.E. (2004) History of carbonate ion concentration over the last 100 million years. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 68: 3521-3530

Some of the key points the authors found:

“On the other hand, the calcite compensation depth, and hence the CaCO3 saturation, has varied little over the last 100 My as documented in deep sea sediments”

And

”Our results show that [CO32−] has nearly quadrupled since the Cretaceous. Furthermore, by combining our [CO32−] proxy with other carbonate system proxies, we provide calculations of the entire seawater carbonate system and atmospheric CO2. Based on this, reconstructed atmospheric CO2 is relatively low in the Miocene but high in the Eocene. Finally, we make a strong case that seawater pH has increased over the last 100 My.

Now don’t get too excited, indeed the authors claim a general increase over the last 100MA, it doesn’t say anything about more recent ocean acidification, which is quite real and represents a measurable drop as has been discussed throughout this thread. But in a general sense, the overall trend is what the authors are dealing with.

It should be stressed that this article is, as far as I can tell, in no way related to current climactic science or any sort of indictment against any of the current climate issues. It appears quite silent on this topic.

If you wish to merely say “carbonate levels in the ocean are variable over time”, that’s fine. That is true enough probably. This article seems to indicate that issue, but with some important caveats.

I don’t think there’s a person on this forum who would argue that concentrations of various chemicals in systems can and do change over geologic time. The key seems to be that modern impacts can be made by human actions. We are measurably and directly involved in pumping into the atmosphere sufficient CO2 to negatively impact the ocean’s natural buffer system.

That says absolutely nothing about natural cycles or that these natural cycles occur. But again, why this matters as a distinction is that we, directly, can be held responsible for hurting our own planet and WE, directly, can affect this particular cycle.

It’s like saying “Sure pushing a car off a cliff will result in the occupants getting hurt badly, and that’s because GRAVITY pulled the car down with such force” and then assuming that we shouldn’t feel bad about literally pushing a car off the cliff since gravity was what pulled the car down.

But that aside, let’s look at the chemistry incumbent on this argument.

The authors start with a reconstruction of paleodepth of the calcite compensation depth (CCD). The authors utilize the “bold” line in their reconstruction figure showing a “shallowing” of CCD with older time. But even then, it is a small variability. This small variability of the depth of the CCD indicates to the authors that:

“The CCD data imply that Ω has been fairly constant since the Cretaceous despite the concomitant decrease in [Ca2+].”

(In this case Ω is the “saturation index” which is equal to:

[Ca[sup]2+[/sup]]*[CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[/sup]]/K[sub]sp[/sub])

The key to their argument is, essentially that K[sub]sp[/sub] is impacted by the relative amount of Ca[sup]2+[/sup] and Mg[sup]2+[/sup]. The relative concentration deltas from their calculations result in an approximately 35% increase in K[sub]sp[/sub] in the past. Increase the Mg[sup]2+[/sup]/ Ca[sup]2+[/sup] and you increase the K[sub]sp[/sub]

The authors explain the role of magnesium on the Ksp thusly:

ROLE OF [Mg2+] on Ksp:
“Calcite saturation state is affected by [Mg2+] as well as [Ca2+], through Ksp. We used the relationship Ksp(t)=Ksp(0)−α[5.14−x(t)] to calculate Ksp at various Mg concentrations, where Ksp(0) is today’s solubility product of calcite, x(t) is the Mg/Ca ratio of seawater over time, and α =3.655 × 10−8 (derived from Mucci and Morse (1984)). As a result, Ksp increased by 35% when the seawater Mg/Ca ratio rose (Fig. 1) from 1.4 (100 My) to 5.1 (today).

The effect of [Mg2+] and [Ca2+] on the first and second dissociation constants of carbonic acid (required for calculating the whole carbonate system from any two parameters), K1 and K2, was calculated using published sensitivity parameters (Ben-Yaakov and Goldhaber, 1973). For example, a twofold increase of Mg leads to an increase of K2 by ~28% (equivalent to a shift of pK2 by about −0.1 units).
…
Most carbonate ions in seawater are complexed with Mg ions, and we include the effect of varying Mg ion concentration on carbonate ion activity via its effect on the solubility of calcite

In effect they hold Ω constant and increase K[sub]sp[sub] and using various proxies for pH they conclude:

“Combining the ‘best-fit’ scenarios (Horita et al. 2002) (22 down to 10.6 mMol kg−1) and [Mg2+] (30 up to 55 mMol kg−1) with near-constant calcite saturation state derived from Figure 2 and Equn 4 of Jansen et al. (2002), we calculate that surface ocean [CO32−] rose by approximately fourfold, from ~55 μMol kg−1 at 100 Mya to its present-day value of ~200 μMol/kg

Since you previously wished to bring in the role of the biological pump, the authors have kindly included some description of their proposed role for this pump:

BIOLOGY ROLE:
“Respiration of organic carbon in sediments can lead to a partial decoupling between deep ocean chemistry and the CCD (Archer and Maier-Reimer, 1994). However, this effect is likely to be of minor importance to this study (see discussion in section 4.5 of Zeebe and Westbroek (2003)). The near-constancy of the differential between planktic and benthic δ13C (Broecker and Peng, 1998) suggests that the organic carbon fluxes of today are similar to those of the past. The respiration effect is not included in our calculations.

(emphasis added)

 

[juvenissun]

Tyrrell, T., Zeebe, R.E. (2004)

Now don’t get too excited, indeed the authors claim a general increase over the last 100MA, it doesn’t say anything about more recent ocean acidification, which is quite real and represents a measurable drop as has been discussed throughout this thread. But in a general sense, the overall trend is what the authors are dealing with.

It should be stressed that this article is, as far as I can tell, in no way related to current climactic science or any sort of indictment against any of the current climate issues. It appears quite silent on this topic.

Well, like I said, we are just browsing references.

The one by Zhang et al (2007) did address an example of much recent time. I quoted their abst and conclusion below. I believe there should be A LOT other articles address more recent situations. I may try to give you another list next time.

While reading these references, I would ask you to shape up a question you like to explore more. I am also doing the same. But somehow, for a practical purpose, we need to merge the goals of investigation.

For example, I am more interested in knowing the history not only in the past 100 Ma, but all the way back to Hadean. While I can see you may be more interested in knowing some details in Pleistocene age. I would say there must be something common within this two time domains. If such thing could be identified, that would be the topic we want to investigate.

-----
Zhang et al (2007)

We analyzed foraminiferal and nannofossil assemblages and stable isotopes in samples from ODP Hole 807A on the Ontong
Java Plateau in order to evaluate productivity and carbonate dissolution cycles over the last 550 kyr (kilo year) in the western
equatorial Pacific. Our results indicate that productivity was generally higher in glacials than during interglacials, and gradually
increased since MIS 13. Carbonate dissolution was weak in deglacial intervals, but often reached a maximum during interglacial to
glacial transitions. Carbonate cycles in the western equatorial Pacific were mainly influenced by changes of deep-water properties
rather than by local primary productivity. Fluctuations of the estimated thermocline depth were not related to glacial to interglacial
alternations, but changed distinctly at ∼280 kyr. Before that time the thermocline was relatively shallow and its depth fluctuated at
a comparatively high amplitude and low frequency. After 280 kyr, the thermocline was deeper, and its fluctuations were at lower
amplitude and higher frequency. These different patterns in productivity and thermocline variability suggest that thermocline
dynamics probably were not a controlling factor of biological productivity in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. In this region,
upwelling, the influx of cool, nutrient-rich waters from the eastern equatorial Pacific or of fresh waters from rivers have probably
never been important, and their influence on productivity has been negligible over the studied period. Variations in the inferred
productivity in general are well correlated with fluctuations in the eolian flux as recorded in the northwestern Pacific, a proxy for
the late Quaternary history of the central East Asian dust flux into the Pacific. Therefore, we suggest that the dust flux from the
central East Asian continent may have been an important driver of productivity in the western Pacific.


Productivity variations over the last 550 kyr were
reconstructed based upon multiple proxies (benthic and
planktonic foraminiferal assemblages, calcareous nannoplankton
assemblages, and stable isotopes) in ODP
Hole 807A (Ontong Java Plateau). Our results show that
productivity was generally higher in glacial times than
in interglacial times, but these fluctuations are superimposed
on a gradually increasing trend since MIS 13
(∼500 kyr). The highest primary productivity occurred
in the last glacial age (MISs 4–2), when seasonality was
probably very strong. In the western equatorial Pacific,
minimum carbonate dissolution occurred during glacial
to interglacial transitions and maximum dissolution
during interglacial to glacial transitions both above and
below the lysocline. During the mid-Brunhes, however,
severe carbonate dissolution did not occur above the
lysocline as described from other regions, but only
below the lysocline. The maximum dissolution above
the lysocline (as expressed by the fragment ratio) as
averaged over the 550 kyr interval studied occurred
during MIS 8 (∼250 kyr), i.e. much later than the mid-
Brunhes. In our data there is no significant correlation
between productivity and carbonate dissolution, and we
therefore argue that fluctuations in deep-water circulation
patterns (thus character of the deep waters in the
western equatorial Pacific) were the primary factors in
regulating carbonate cycles both on glacial–interglcial
and 500-kyr timescales.
The abundance variations of coccolith F. profunda in
Hole 807A appear to be an indicator of thermocline
depth rather than of paleoproductivity. The low abundances
of F. profunda corresponded to the dominance of
Gephyrocapsa in the mid-Brunhes interval, which was
probably caused by shoaling of the thermocline depth.
The various thermocline proxies do not significantly
fluctuate with the glacial–interglacial cycles, but show a
step-like increase since about 280 kyr, while the amplitude
of fluctuations decreased, their frequency increased. The thermocline dynamics may be linked to changes in
regional wind intensity and sea surface temperature.
There is no significant correlation between paleoproductivity
and thermocline depth, suggesting that thermocline
dynamics probably did not control biological
productivity in the western equatorial Pacific. The
similarity between our paleoproductivity record from
Hole 807A and the dust flux record in northwestern
Pacific core V21–146 suggests a link between primary
productivity and dust flux, and we argue that dust carried
from central East Asia may be more significant than
previously thought in enhancing biological productivity
in the western equatorial Pacific during glacial times.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, like I said, we are just browsing references.

YOU may be just "browsing". I'm attempting to discuss the science.

The one by Zhang et al (2007) did address an example of much recent time. I quoted their abst and conclusion below. I believe there should be A LOT other articles address more recent situations. I may try to give you another list next time.

How about fewer lists and more "content"?

While reading these references, I would ask you to shape up a question you like to explore more.

I have no questions. You started out making claims around the validity of ocean acidification on reef building. You've been shown the chemistry, so I fully expect you to defend any point you've made so far in the debate.

I honestly don't think I fully understand what your issues might be. You've been shown how carbonate reefs are negatively impacted during pH regimes higher than standard solubility, you've been shown the impact of various chemical conditions on carbonate species in the ocean.

Not sure what the question is at this point.

I am also doing the same. But somehow, for a practical purpose, we need to merge the goals of investigation.

Well, what is the question?

For example, I am more interested in knowing the history not only in the past 100 Ma, but all the way back to Hadean.

So the fact that proxies going back >100MA are very rare and even the article you listed and as usual which I read and discussed in detail showed how difficult it is, what more do you want?

While I can see you may be more interested in knowing some details in Pleistocene age.

Uh, 100MA takes us well back before the Pleistocene.:

Here's a geologic calendar:

MA means "mega-annum", or "millions of years". If you look at the numbers on the right side you see that 100MA is firmly in the Cretaceous.

Just an FYI.

Zhang et al (2007)

We analyzed foraminiferal and nannofossil assemblages and stable isotopes in samples from ODP Hole 807A on the Ontong
Java Plateau in order to evaluate productivity and carbonate dissolution cycles over the last 550 kyr (kilo year) in the western
equatorial Pacific.

Were you confusing my interests with yours? 550ka is in the Pleistocene.

Our results indicate that productivity was generally higher in glacials than during interglacials, and gradually
increased since MIS 13. Carbonate dissolution was weak in deglacial intervals, but often reached a maximum during interglacial to
glacial transitions. Carbonate cycles in the western equatorial Pacific were mainly influenced by changes of deep-water properties
rather than by local primary productivity. Fluctuations of the estimated thermocline depth were not related to glacial to interglacial
alternations, but changed distinctly at ∼280 kyr. Before that time the thermocline was relatively shallow and its depth fluctuated at
a comparatively high amplitude and low frequency. After 280 kyr, the thermocline was deeper, and its fluctuations were at lower
amplitude and higher frequency.

And you wish to say what about this point? I've already found an article discussing the relative level of the thermocline. What are we discussing here again?

Why don't you tell me what is of concern to you? Is it the pH of the oceans? Is it understanding the relationship between pCO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere and it's impact on carbonate/bicarbonate levels in the water?

What?

Please, next time you post an article, do me the great favor of explaining what your point is in relationship to this article. As I did in the previous post. Cut-n-paste is not science.

 

[juvenissun]

YOU may be just "browsing". I'm attempting to discuss the science.



How about fewer lists and more "content"?



I have no questions. You started out making claims around the validity of ocean acidification on reef building. You've been shown the chemistry, so I fully expect you to defend any point you've made so far in the debate.

I honestly don't think I fully understand what your issues might be. You've been shown how carbonate reefs are negatively impacted during pH regimes higher than standard solubility, you've been shown the impact of various chemical conditions on carbonate species in the ocean.

Not sure what the question is at this point.



Well, what is the question?



So the fact that proxies going back >100MA are very rare and even the article you listed and as usual which I read and discussed in detail showed how difficult it is, what more do you want?



Uh, 100MA takes us well back before the Pleistocene.:

Here's a geologic calendar:

MA means "mega-annum", or "millions of years". If you look at the numbers on the right side you see that 100MA is firmly in the Cretaceous.

Just an FYI.



Were you confusing my interests with yours? 550ka is in the Pleistocene.



And you wish to say what about this point? I've already found an article discussing the relative level of the thermocline. What are we discussing here again?

Why don't you tell me what is of concern to you? Is it the pH of the oceans? Is it understanding the relationship between pCO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere and it's impact on carbonate/bicarbonate levels in the water?

What?

Please, next time you post an article, do me the great favor of explaining what your point is in relationship to this article. As I did in the previous post. Cut-n-paste is not science.

You are very cocky. I don't think we are on the same page at all.
Let me think how should I talk to you. I don't want to be buried in details and never know why am I doing it. Like I said, I have no interest in continue the debate on coral and global warming. If you expect me to defend what I said there, you will not have it. I want to talk about CO3 in seawater. So, it is desirable to start a new thread. I haven't do that yet because I am not sure if I should do it. I don't have a concrete question yet.

If you do not participate in the goal searching process with me, then once I formated my question, I won't even talk to you, because you would have no idea on what I am talking about at that time.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You are very cocky.

Ironically enough, anyone who knows me in the real world would say I'm not. It's only when I'm on here and run into people who talk a big game but never come through with it that I get cocky.

Sorry.

I don't think we are on the same page at all.

Because I can substantively explain what I read in scientific publications? Indeed. That appears to be the case.

Let me think how should I talk to you.

Look, Juvenissun, if you want an excuse to chicken out, please feel free to do so. I can understand you were probably not expecting that I could grab one of your reference listings and actually discuss it. My apologies if that threw a monkey wrench.

Please accept my condolences if you are in need of an "out".

I don't want to be buried in details and never know why am I doing it.

I am merely explaining the chemistry to you. This is part of geochemistry. If details are going to be a bother, then by all means use this as your excuse to back out now.

But I am curious as to what your point might be. I started off on this thread addressing point-by-point your commentary around pH and corals. This morphed into some sort of discussion around carbonate concentrations in seawater. I'm not sure if you have any specific issues or questions around this, but if you do, I'll gladly attempt to help you as much as I can.

Like I said, I have no interest in continue the debate on coral and global warming.

I'll gladly drop both those points. What specifically is your point?

What do you want to discuss from the mass of articles you brought up? Do you want to discuss some aspect from the article I picked from your list?

If you expect me to defend what I said there, you will not have it.

I don't expect that at all anymore.

I want to talk about CO3 in seawater. So, it is desirable to start a new thread. I haven't do that yet because I am not sure if I should do it. I don't have a concrete question yet.

Until that time I'm more than glad to continue explaining geochemical/marine carbon cycle topics as well as I can to you.

If you do not participate in the goal searching process with me

What more do I need to do? All you seem to do is list references now. That isn't a discussion. I have no outstanding "beef" with the marine geochemists.

, then once I formated my question, I won't even talk to you, because you would have no idea on what I am talking about at that time.

Please let me be cocky again. I'm afraid there is little you could raise that I couldn't quickly come to speed on. No offense. I'm being outstandingly cocky with that claim. I don't think I'm that good, but so far you've shown little ability to formulate a comprehensible and detailed point.

I'll level with you, Juvie, I think I've shown in this thread alone (not to mention the tons of other threads I've engaged you on), that I am quite capable of quickly grasping the science behind these points. I've consistently and thoroughly approached the points.

Just look at this thread for an example. You pumped out a list of references. One of which I quickly picked up and analyzed. I don't have any outstanding questions about it, but I suspect you must have some interest in it...you brought the article up in the first place.

What is your point? I'm lost unless you formulate a specific point.

I totally agree that carbonate concentration can change with depth and over time. I think the drivers have been specifically and explicitly listed on this thread (by me) and I have no problems with discussing any aspect to those drivers you might wish to bring up.

I can do it without reference to global warming, I can do it without explicit reference to biology (short of appreciation of the role of the "Biological Pump" as you no doubt recall from your oceanography training).

What is the issue? What is the point?

 

[juvenissun]

Ironically enough, anyone who knows me in the real world would say I'm not. It's only when I'm on here and run into people who talk a big game but never come through with it that I get cocky.

Sorry.



Because I can substantively explain what I read in scientific publications? Indeed. That appears to be the case.



Look, Juvenissun, if you want an excuse to chicken out, please feel free to do so. I can understand you were probably not expecting that I could grab one of your reference listings and actually discuss it. My apologies if that threw a monkey wrench.

Please accept my condolences if you are in need of an "out".



I am merely explaining the chemistry to you. This is part of geochemistry. If details are going to be a bother, then by all means use this as your excuse to back out now.

But I am curious as to what your point might be. I started off on this thread addressing point-by-point your commentary around pH and corals. This morphed into some sort of discussion around carbonate concentrations in seawater. I'm not sure if you have any specific issues or questions around this, but if you do, I'll gladly attempt to help you as much as I can.



I'll gladly drop both those points. What specifically is your point?

What do you want to discuss from the mass of articles you brought up? Do you want to discuss some aspect from the article I picked from your list?



I don't expect that at all anymore.



Until that time I'm more than glad to continue explaining geochemical/marine carbon cycle topics as well as I can to you.



What more do I need to do? All you seem to do is list references now. That isn't a discussion. I have no outstanding "beef" with the marine geochemists.



Please let me be cocky again. I'm afraid there is little you could raise that I couldn't quickly come to speed on. No offense. I'm being outstandingly cocky with that claim. I don't think I'm that good, but so far you've shown little ability to formulate a comprehensible and detailed point.

I'll level with you, Juvie, I think I've shown in this thread alone (not to mention the tons of other threads I've engaged you on), that I am quite capable of quickly grasping the science behind these points. I've consistently and thoroughly approached the points.

Just look at this thread for an example. You pumped out a list of references. One of which I quickly picked up and analyzed. I don't have any outstanding questions about it, but I suspect you must have some interest in it...you brought the article up in the first place.

What is your point? I'm lost unless you formulate a specific point.

I totally agree that carbonate concentration can change with depth and over time. I think the drivers have been specifically and explicitly listed on this thread (by me) and I have no problems with discussing any aspect to those drivers you might wish to bring up.

I can do it without reference to global warming, I can do it without explicit reference to biology (short of appreciation of the role of the "Biological Pump" as you no doubt recall from your oceanography training).

What is the issue? What is the point?

The formation of a new idea takes time. It is not just understand/interpret other's idea/data. If you do not want to use your brain to create, that is fine with me. But I need time to read and to think. When I have something, I will let you know. It won't be long.

Currently I want to know: Where did the CO3 come from (at the beginning)? And what made it change through time?

 

[Vene]

The formation of a new idea takes time. It is not just understand/interpret other's idea/data. If you do not want to use your brain to create, that is fine with me. But I need time to read and to think. When I have something, I will let you know. It won't be long.

Currently I want to know: Where did the CO3 come from (at the beginning)? And what made it change through time?

Start a new topic if you want to do that, this one is about how we humans are destroying coral reefs.

By the way, the subject you are looking for is nuclear chemistry.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you want to discuss from the mass of articles you brought up? Do you want to discuss some aspect from the article I picked from your list?


What more do I need to do? All you seem to do is list references now. That isn't a discussion. I have no outstanding "beef" with the marine geochemists.

I guess you do not appreciate that I showed you a list of reference and showed you the abst and conclusion of a particular article. Fine. I won't do it again unless you request for it. Thank you for saving me some time.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Well, like I said, we are just browsing references.

I would ask you to shape up a question you like to explore more. I am also doing the same. But somehow, for a practical purpose, we need to merge the goals of investigation.

I will give you a question:

Salt (NaCl) is at present at a level of ~32 o/oo (parts per thousend) in the oceans. Of course Na and Cl are dissociated in see water because then bonds are ionic, which is common for elements from opposing sides of the periodic table. These ions are supplied to the oceans by many processes including weathering and hydrothermal circulation of hot fluids through ocean ridge basalts and ultra mafic rocks, which leach the more soluble ions from the rock, leading to the metamorphism of oceanic basalts and ultra mafics to Serpentinites

So the question is, why are the oceans not saturated with NaCl and what mechanisms remove the salt from sea water.

One thing; before you question my knowledge of chemistry and geology, I know the answer, or at least the accepted answer, I just want a creationist’s view on this particular aspect of ocean chemistry.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The formation of a new idea takes time. It is not just understand/interpret other's idea/data.

Well, considering that I am unsure if you actually understand the fundamental chemistry (other people's work)...

If you do not want to use your brain to create, that is fine with me. But I need time to read and to think.

Uh, you're a geologist, right? Didn't you learn any of this stuff in school?

Currently I want to know: Where did the CO3 come from (at the beginning)? And what made it change through time?

Finally! Thank you!

Here's how it works:

Nucleosynthesis: this is how stars start with simple Hydrogen to form larger atoms like He and C.

Carbon is made by the Triple Alpha Process.

He + He --> Be
Be + He --> C + gamma photon + 7.367MeV

(SOURCE)

Interesting side-process is the formation of an oxygen atom:

C + He --> O + gamma photon

This produces a stable isotope of oxygen.

OK, so, very simplistically, we have C and O.

Planets are made from the material in the accretionary disks around stars. Our planet formed from this accretionary disk, our atmosphere in part came from volcanic outgassing:

Volcanoes today outgas with about 1.1% CO[sub]2[/sub] along with a much larger amount of H[sub]2[/sub]O.

During the "Differentiation" Phase of planetary formation it is assumed the earth's atmosphere started from the large amount of volcanism occuring then. (SOURCE)

Then, as has already been explained a number of times in this thread here's what happens when CO2 interacts with water.

CO[sub]2[/sub] + H[sub]2[/sub]O <--> HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] + H[sup]+[/sup]

HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] <--> CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup] + H[sup]+[/sup]

So now you have, in a nutshell, where Carbon comes from (nucleosynthesis in stars), where earth's carbon dioxide comes from (outgassing of the early earth during "differentiation") and then where CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[sup] comes from!

That was admittedly simplified but it's pretty straightforward.

 

[juvenissun]

I will give you a question:

Salt (NaCl) is at present at a level of ~32 o/oo (parts per thousend) in the oceans. Of course Na and Cl are dissociated in see water because then bonds are ionic, which is common for elements from opposing sides of the periodic table. These ions are supplied to the oceans by many processes including weathering and hydrothermal circulation of hot fluids through ocean ridge basalts and ultra mafic rocks, which leach the more soluble ions from the rock, leading to the metamorphism of oceanic basalts and ultra mafics to Serpentinites

So the question is, why are the oceans not saturated with NaCl and what mechanisms remove the salt from sea water.

One thing; before you question my knowledge of chemistry and geology, I know the answer, or at least the accepted answer, I just want a creationist’s view on this particular aspect of ocean chemistry.

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

So, smart guy, I don't expect you give me any answer that I don't know.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, considering that I am unsure if you actually understand the fundamental chemistry (other people's work)...



Uh, you're a geologist, right? Didn't you learn any of this stuff in school?



Finally! Thank you!

Here's how it works:

Nucleosynthesis: this is how stars start with simple Hydrogen to form larger atoms like He and C.

Carbon is made by the Triple Alpha Process.

He + He --> Be
Be + He --> C + gamma photon + 7.367MeV

(SOURCE)

Interesting side-process is the formation of an oxygen atom:

C + He --> O + gamma photon

This produces a stable isotope of oxygen.

OK, so, very simplistically, we have C and O.

Planets are made from the material in the accretionary disks around stars. Our planet formed from this accretionary disk, our atmosphere in part came from volcanic outgassing:

Volcanoes today outgas with about 1.1% CO[sub]2[/sub] along with a much larger amount of H[sub]2[/sub]O.

During the "Differentiation" Phase of planetary formation it is assumed the earth's atmosphere started from the large amount of volcanism occuring then. (SOURCE)

Then, as has already been explained a number of times in this thread here's what happens when CO2 interacts with water.

CO[sub]2[/sub] + H[sub]2[/sub]O <--> HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] + H[sup]+[/sup]

HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] <--> CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup] + H[sup]+[/sup]

So now you have, in a nutshell, where Carbon comes from (nucleosynthesis in stars), where earth's carbon dioxide comes from (outgassing of the early earth during "differentiation") and then where CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]2-[sup] comes from!

That was admittedly simplified but it's pretty straightforward.

Why would volcanic activity in early earth give so much CO2? Which is nearly all inorganic in origin.

Is it fair to say that all CO3 in the early ocean was given by CO2 in the air? If so, how quickly would the CO2 in the air be reduced in concentration?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

So, smart guy, I don't expect you give me any answer that I don't know.

Come on not so smart guy; I asked you a straight forward question, i.e. why aren’t the oceans saturated with respect to NaCl (salt). You have failed to answer the question, I can think of two reasons why you did not answer.

1 You do not know
2 You do know the answer, but it destroys creationism.

So I will give you a second change at answering the question, because I really am interested in the creationist prospective on this.

Why aren’t the oceans saturated with salt.

Or if you like I will reword it.

Where is all the missing NaCl (salt) which should be in the oceans?

 

[juvenissun]

Come on not so smart guy; I asked you a straight forward question, i.e. why aren’t the oceans saturated with respect to NaCl (salt). You have failed to answer the question, I can think of two reasons why you did not answer.

1 You do not know
2 You do know the answer, but it destroys creationism.

So I will give you a second change at answering the question, because I really am interested in the creationist prospective on this.

Why aren’t the oceans saturated with salt.

Or if you like I will reword it.

Where is all the missing NaCl (salt) which should be in the oceans?

Read again my reply. I***t.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Read again my reply. I***t.

OK, I will have to go with the creationist idea on this and assume that you go along with this view, seeing has you can not come up with one yourself, and that is;

The oceans are not saturated with salt, because the earth is young.

Sound about right to you, creationist