Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[juvenissun]

Fair enough. What drives the CO2 flux to the air? Specifically and in detail. (Note: I don't disagree with this stance, I just want to see some mass balances and drivers explicitly laid out by someone other than myself for a change in this discussion. Thanks.)

That is not the issue. The issue is how would the ocean respond to the increase.

 

[juvenissun]

The Messinian Salinity Crisis

LINK

Chronology was difficult as little could live in such saline conditions so dateable marine fossils were lacking, but 87Sr, ∂18O, and ∂13C isotopes, magnetostratigraphy, astrochronology, and stratigraphical studies where uplift and exhumation have exposed sequences, mainly in Italy and Spain, have helped to calibrate timing. The much- debated, but now mainly- agreed, outline sequence appears to be:

7.24/6.88 Ma - alternations of marine marls and sapropels in Sicilian strata reflecting gradual modification of water exchange with the Atlantic;

5.96 ± 0.02 Ma – synchronous transition to regressive evaporite deposition over entire Mediterranean. Deposition of Lower Evaporite unit indicating a relative sea-level fall of between 200m and 1000m

5.8 – 5.5 Ma – complete isolation established. In basins erosional surface/M-layer (lowstand in sequence stratigraphy terms), on land deeply incised fluvial channels cut.
Diachronous onset of transgressive Upper Evaporites and ‘Lago Mare’ with nonmarine, brackish lakes in deepest basins fed by warmer wetter climate in river drainage areas.

5.33 Ma – abrupt synchronous return to full marine conditions. Miocene/ Pliocene boundary. (Krijgsman et al, 1999).

The M layer contains evaporates that would have consisted of 5% of the oceans salt. In other world 5% of the worlds ocean water would have had to have evaporated for the Mediterranean basin to deposit these evaporates.

Miocene or not means very little to creationism. Why Miocene only? Why not Paleocene? or Pleistocene? Is there any difference?

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is not the issue. The issue is how would the ocean respond to the increase.

Well, there ya go! That's actually an interesting question.

That's why we have the Revelle Buffer Factor that I brought up waay too many pages back.

Revelle and Seuss, as I'm sure you recall, set out to see if the ocean could take up all the excess CO2 mankind was pumping into the atmosphere. Turns out the relationship is far from simple.

(I know I'm doing it again, and please forgive me for presenting stuff to you that you couldn't care less about, except it really relates to the topic at hand, and since I'm clearly not as bright as you are, I'm kind of laying this out so I can better understand it myself...all part of the "conversation", which so far is pretty one-sided content-wise):

The Revelle Buffer Factor is a way to assess changes in [CO2] and DIC in the ocean.

(Remember, DIC is defined as...well, I'm sure you remember, and since you don't have a need for detailed explainations I'll spare you, but for my own point I'll remind you that

[DIC] ~ [HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup]] + [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]] )

The Revelle Buffer Factor is equal to the ratio of the relative change in CO2 in the "mixed layer" to the relative change in DIC:

​

​

d[CO2]ml/[CO2]ml​

d[DIC]/[DIC]

So when DIC increases by about 1%, CO2 in the mixed layer increases by 10%.

Further an UPTAKE FACTOR can be assessed:

1/a(T,S)*(d[DIC]/d[CO2][sub]ml[/sub])

a(T,S) = Solubility of CO2 as a function of temperature and salinity

and the ml subscript denotes "Mixed layer".

The Revelle Factor (RF) and the Uptake Factor (UF) can be related thusly:

RF = (1/UF)([DIC]/pCO2[sub]ml[/sub])

Generally speaking LOW RF are found in warm, tropical waters, while HIGH RF are found in colder, high latitude waters.

Basically, what this means is that LOW LATITUDES are better at sequestering CO2 than HIGH LATITUDE waters. (SOURCE)

The Revelle Factor tends to limit the amount of CO2 that the ocean can take up, versus if we were to just think of the ocean as an unbuffered sink (SOURCE)

Ultimately owing to the relationship between the flux across the air-sea barrier and the amount of carbon dissolved in the ocean:

"...a substantial increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere is balanced by a small increase in [the sum of all forms of dissolved carbon in the ocean] (SOURCE)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I said inorganic carbon because in early earth, there were no organic carbon, but there were A LOT CO2 in the air.

I don't recall bringing up organic carbon in that part of the discussion.

Well, my questions are original. It is more precious than summary or digest or illustration.

No, they aren't. They're just your questions. Summary and digest and illustration indicates you are actually interested in trying to learn the science. I'll readily confess ocean carbon cycle stuff is very interesting to me, but I've got a ways to go in learning it. The above RF discussion is for me, still hard work. I'm still trying to parse all it says.

If you do not think so, try to make one. I will appreciate it VERY much. I also suggest you to save a lot of equation typing. It is not needed at this time.

You are so incredibly incorrect there. Equation typing is necessary. It shows that I'm interested in the topic enough to actually think about it and present my point.

You know, the less information you put out there and the more posts you make in which you don't really put much effort into explaining your points in detail, indicates to me that you are simply not interested or not capable of the discussion.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong, but so far you've not held up your end of a "scientific discussion".

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that scientists don't talk more like ME than YOU in a scientific discussion.

We can all just make stuff up or ask endless questions to our hearts content, but real science happens when we try to understand the question and formulate an answer.

Answer. That's kind of the goal. We know it won't be perfect, but Creationists need to learn it simply isn't enough to keep asking endless questions unless they are willing to do the heavy lifting of working on an answer.

Well, we all know what Creationists excel at, so I shouldn't put such a requirement on them. I've not met a creationist on this board who actually bothered with detailed science. Most of them are just proud that they can ask questions and cast doubt and scream "it's complicate" and spend the rest of the time patting themselves on the back for a "job well done".

Sorry, but that is for the weak minded and simple. Not science.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, there ya go! That's actually an interesting question.

That's why we have the Revelle Buffer Factor that I brought up waay too many pages back.

Revelle and Seuss, as I'm sure you recall, set out to see if the ocean could take up all the excess CO2 mankind was pumping into the atmosphere. Turns out the relationship is far from simple.

(I know I'm doing it again, and please forgive me for presenting stuff to you that you couldn't care less about, except it really relates to the topic at hand, and since I'm clearly not as bright as you are, I'm kind of laying this out so I can better understand it myself...all part of the "conversation", which so far is pretty one-sided content-wise):

The Revelle Buffer Factor is a way to assess changes in [CO2] and DIC in the ocean.

(Remember, DIC is defined as...well, I'm sure you remember, and since you don't have a need for detailed explainations I'll spare you, but for my own point I'll remind you that

[DIC] ~ [HCO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup]] + [CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]] )

The Revelle Buffer Factor is equal to the ratio of the relative change in CO2 in the "mixed layer" to the relative change in DIC:

​

​

d[CO2]ml/[CO2]ml​

d[DIC]/[DIC]

So when DIC increases by about 1%, CO2 in the mixed layer increases by 10%.

Further an UPTAKE FACTOR can be assessed:

1/a(T,S)*(d[DIC]/d[CO2][sub]ml[/sub])

a(T,S) = Solubility of CO2 as a function of temperature and salinity

and the ml subscript denotes "Mixed layer".

The Revelle Factor (RF) and the Uptake Factor (UF) can be related thusly:

RF = (1/UF)([DIC]/pCO2[sub]ml[/sub])

Generally speaking LOW RF are found in warm, tropical waters, while HIGH RF are found in colder, high latitude waters.

Basically, what this means is that LOW LATITUDES are better at sequestering CO2 than HIGH LATITUDE waters. (SOURCE)

The Revelle Factor tends to limit the amount of CO2 that the ocean can take up, versus if we were to just think of the ocean as an unbuffered sink (SOURCE)

Ultimately owing to the relationship between the flux across the air-sea barrier and the amount of carbon dissolved in the ocean:

Not I don't appreciate the argument. I don't care for repetition. Particularly something explained well in literature.

I guess you would be a better teacher than I am. Students would like you. Hey, a teacher has almost half an year paid off per year. Care to apply for a new job? I guess you might be qualified for an associate.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't recall bringing up organic carbon in that part of the discussion.



No, they aren't. They're just your questions. Summary and digest and illustration indicates you are actually interested in trying to learn the science. I'll readily confess ocean carbon cycle stuff is very interesting to me, but I've got a ways to go in learning it. The above RF discussion is for me, still hard work. I'm still trying to parse all it says.



You are so incredibly incorrect there. Equation typing is necessary. It shows that I'm interested in the topic enough to actually think about it and present my point.

You know, the less information you put out there and the more posts you make in which you don't really put much effort into explaining your points in detail, indicates to me that you are simply not interested or not capable of the discussion.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong, but so far you've not held up your end of a "scientific discussion".

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that scientists don't talk more like ME than YOU in a scientific discussion.

We can all just make stuff up or ask endless questions to our hearts content, but real science happens when we try to understand the question and formulate an answer.

Answer. That's kind of the goal. We know it won't be perfect, but Creationists need to learn it simply isn't enough to keep asking endless questions unless they are willing to do the heavy lifting of working on an answer.

Well, we all know what Creationists excel at, so I shouldn't put such a requirement on them. I've not met a creationist on this board who actually bothered with detailed science. Most of them are just proud that they can ask questions and cast doubt and scream "it's complicate" and spend the rest of the time patting themselves on the back for a "job well done".

Sorry, but that is for the weak minded and simple. Not science.

Ultimately, I think I am talking to an engineer, not a scientist.

Even I asked many questions, I still do not have a working question yet. So, how do I go for any answer? When I was freshman, I was very impressed by a lesson: My professor said: "anyone can pick up any rock on the road and do a research paper on it. But why bother?". One can dig into details very easily. But where to dig is THE problem. Is the question in your work given by your boss so you only have to figure out the details? You may call that science. But I call it engineering. I don't have a boss, and I only have one life. I can not afford to dig around without a clear purpose.

My job is to figure out a question, and guide the direction of research. If you are interested in carbonate oceanography, what you need is a question, not to repeat a whole bunch of details that you already know.

 

[Vene]

Since when does science ignore the details? You're just scared of them because if details are brought up, you get confused. Juv, nobody here believes you're a scientist. Your knowledge of chemistry is non-existent. The geologists here talk circles around you. You get scared by equations. You never cite, that is a big no-no in scientific circles. If you don't cite, you might as well be making everything up.

Not to mention that you have yet to bring up a reason why carbon dioxide is not responsible for coral reef destruction. Stay on the topic. By the way, the question is, 'why are coral reefs being destroyed?' That has been answered in this thread multiple times. The answer is that humans have been pumping CO[sub]2[/sub] into the air for the past century or so, CO[sub]2[/sub] reacts with water to form H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub] (which dissociates into H[sup]+[/sup] and HCO[sub]3[/sub]), H[sup]+[/sup] reacts with CaCO[sub]3[/sub] and forms Ca[sup]2+[/sup] and H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]. Also, the pH of ocean water has decreased ~0.1 units. This means that the buffered solution has been overrun. It takes a lot to overcome a buffer solution, at that point any further solute added will have a (relatively) greater effect. All of this has been said earlier in this thread. Can you point to where any of this is wrong? Can you point to something that has been overlooked? Do you have an answer that has more evidence pointing to it?

 

[astroweezer]

Ultimately, I think I am talking to an engineer, not a scientist.

Even I asked many questions, I still do not have a working question yet. So, how do I go for any answer? When I was freshman, I was very impressed by a lesson: My professor said: "anyone can pick up any rock on the road and do a research paper on it. But why bother?". One can dig into details very easily. But where to dig is THE problem. Is the question in your work given by your boss so you only have to figure out the details? You may call that science. But I call it engineering. I don't have a boss, and I only have one life. I can not afford to dig around without a clear purpose.

My job is to figure out a question, and guide the direction of research. If you are interested in carbonate oceanography, what you need is a question, not to repeat a whole bunch of details that you already know.

You really are full of yourself. First of all, I have no clue what you are trying to get at with this post. What is this crap about "needing a question?" This is a debate forum, where facts and details are used to support an argument. We are not asking your advice on how to do research.

Second of all, you are just plain wrong that answering your boss' question with details is not science. Science is no less science despite who is asking the question. Just because your boss poses the question for you to answer doesn't mean that you are not doing science. Most of the time (at least in academic settings), it is up to you to develop the method to answer that question. And in the process of answering the question, you start to develop new questions to answer. This is all part of the learning process in becoming a good scientist. A question is not pointless if it doesn't have an immediate application....it's called basic science. It is definitely not engineering (I think you need to look up that word, because it doesn't mean what you apparently think it means). Engineering is just applied science.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I said inorganic carbon because in early earth, there were no organic carbon, but there were A LOT CO2 in the air.

Where did you learn you geology.

People used to thing this to be true, i.e. organic carbon (compounds) can only be synthesised by life forms, but this was shown to be wrong, Urea (NH2)2CO, is an organic compound. It was the first organic compound to be artificially synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wohler, thus disproving the notion that organic compounds are only created by life.

This discovery prompted Wöhler to write triumphantly to Berzelius:
"I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea."
It is found in mammalian and amphibianurine as well as in some fish. Birds and reptiles excrete uric acid, comprising a different form of nitrogenmetabolism that requires less water.

LINK

Also Methane CH4 is the simplest organic compound, but it to can be produced without life, low temperature volcanoes often erupt methane.

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include methyl mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogenoxideradicals.

Here’s an example for you

Methane production and consumption in an active volcanic environment of Southern Italy

Methane fluxes were measured, using closed chambers, in the Crater of Solfatara volcano, Campi Flegrei (Southern Italy), along eight transects covering areas of the crater presenting different landscape physiognomies. These included open bare areas, presenting high geothermal fluxes, and areas covered by vegetation, which developed along a gradient from the central open area outwards, in the form of maquis, grassland and woodland. Methane fluxes decreased logarithmically (from 150 to −4.5 mg CH4 m−2 day−1) going from the central part of the crater (fangaia) to the forested edges, similarly to the CO2 fluxes (from 1500 g CO2 m−2 day−1in the centre of the crater to almost zero flux in the woodlands). In areas characterized by high emissions, soil presented elevated temperature (up to 70 °C at 0–10 cm depth) and extremely low pH (down to 1.8). Conversely, in woodland areas pH was higher (between 3.7 and 5.1) and soil temperature close to air values. Soil (0–10 cm) was sampled, in two different occasions, along the eight transects, and was tested for methane oxidation capacity in laboratory. Areas covered by vegetation mostly consumed CH4 in the following order woodland > macchia > grassland. Methanotrophic activity was also measured in soil from the open bare area. Oxidation rates were comparable to those measured in the plant covered areas and were significantly correlated with field CH4 emissions. The biological mechanism of uptake was demonstrated by the absence of activity in autoclaved replicates. Thus results suggest the existence of a population of micro-organisms adapted to this extreme environment, which are able to oxidize CH4 and whose activity could be stimulated and supported by elevated concentrations of CH4.

So juvenissun, you again have it wrong, this is surprising considering you keep pushing yourself as a scientist, which I for one do not believe for an instant. Take note of what people are posting here, you may learn something and at the same time become less ignorant.

 

[juvenissun]

This is a debate forum,

Who said that?

 

[paug]

Originally Posted by astroweezer

This is a debate forum,
​

Who said that?

What are you expecting, a Christian forum with a Natural Sciences subforum that doesn't result in debate?

 

[juvenissun]

Where did you learn you geology.

People used to thing this to be true, i.e. organic carbon (compounds) can only be synthesised by life forms, but this was shown to be wrong, Urea (NH2)2CO, is an organic compound. It was the first organic compound to be artificially synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wohler, thus disproving the notion that organic compounds are only created by life.

This discovery prompted Wöhler to write triumphantly to Berzelius:
"I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea."
It is found in mammalian and amphibianurine as well as in some fish. Birds and reptiles excrete uric acid, comprising a different form of nitrogenmetabolism that requires less water.

LINK

Also Methane CH4 is the simplest organic compound, but it to can be produced without life, low temperature volcanoes often erupt methane.

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include methyl mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogenoxideradicals.

Here’s an example for you

Methane production and consumption in an active volcanic environment of Southern Italy

Methane fluxes were measured, using closed chambers, in the Crater of Solfatara volcano, Campi Flegrei (Southern Italy), along eight transects covering areas of the crater presenting different landscape physiognomies. These included open bare areas, presenting high geothermal fluxes, and areas covered by vegetation, which developed along a gradient from the central open area outwards, in the form of maquis, grassland and woodland. Methane fluxes decreased logarithmically (from 150 to −4.5 mg CH4 m−2 day−1) going from the central part of the crater (fangaia) to the forested edges, similarly to the CO2 fluxes (from 1500 g CO2 m−2 day−1in the centre of the crater to almost zero flux in the woodlands). In areas characterized by high emissions, soil presented elevated temperature (up to 70 °C at 0–10 cm depth) and extremely low pH (down to 1.8). Conversely, in woodland areas pH was higher (between 3.7 and 5.1) and soil temperature close to air values. Soil (0–10 cm) was sampled, in two different occasions, along the eight transects, and was tested for methane oxidation capacity in laboratory. Areas covered by vegetation mostly consumed CH4 in the following order woodland > macchia > grassland. Methanotrophic activity was also measured in soil from the open bare area. Oxidation rates were comparable to those measured in the plant covered areas and were significantly correlated with field CH4 emissions. The biological mechanism of uptake was demonstrated by the absence of activity in autoclaved replicates. Thus results suggest the existence of a population of micro-organisms adapted to this extreme environment, which are able to oxidize CH4 and whose activity could be stimulated and supported by elevated concentrations of CH4.

So juvenissun, you again have it wrong, this is surprising considering you keep pushing yourself as a scientist, which I for one do not believe for an instant. Take note of what people are posting here, you may learn something and at the same time become less ignorant.

Once for a while, if convenient, I will teach you something:

You can simply say: there is organic carbon on meteorite. This simple sentence is stronger than all your arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by astroweezer

This is a debate forum,
​

What are you expecting, a Christian forum with a Natural Sciences subforum that doesn't result in debate?

Of course it is possible. And it SHOULD be so.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not I don't appreciate the argument. I don't care for repetition. Particularly something explained well in literature.

Have you ever really read the literature? Really?

I guess you would be a better teacher than I am.

First off: yes, I probably would. I have taught extensively in both chemistry and geology.

Second: I don't technically believe you are a teacher, and if you actually are a science teacher, I suspect you are one of the worst ever seen.

Students learn from a person who is willing to get down and dirty and learn it themselves.

Students would like you. Hey, a teacher has almost half an year paid off per year.

OH, I get it, you are clearly not a university teacher. You think all teachers are "high school" teachers with the "summer off"? Ha!

Care to apply for a new job? I guess you might be qualified for an associate.

Oh, my, you know the relative ranks at the university level! My my. Did you get that off googling a university department?

Look, Juvenissun, all you do is talk a big game. You don't impress me, or apparently many others on here. Why don't you show us your "A-Game". Because right now all you have is bluster.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ultimately, I think I am talking to an engineer, not a scientist.

That's nice. It is certainly more complimentary that what I think you are.

Even I asked many questions,

Your grammar fascinates me.

When I was freshman, I was very impressed by a lesson

At least one impressed you.

: My professor said: "anyone can pick up any rock on the road and do a research paper on it. But why bother?".

Well, sometimes you do get bad faculty in a junior college Hotel and Restaurant Management curriculum.

Sorry to hear your prof was a moron.

One can dig into details very easily.

There you go again, all bluster, no proof. You haven't dug into details once, in any forum I've seen your stuff on here.

But then we all really know what you're about, don't we? You want to sound like you are a real scientist and you "parrot" the habits, but do it poorly.

He's standing in front of the class and "talking", but that doesn't make him a professor. (Although I'm sure in the curriculum you took, they could easily have substituted him and you'd be "impressed".)

But where to dig is THE problem.

I recommend you learn where the ground is first so when you do bother to plant your shovel you are actually digging.

Is the question in your work given by your boss so you only have to figure out the details?

Strawman Step #1.

You may call that science. But I call it engineering.

Strawman Step #2

QED! YAY! Your "logic skills" are as impressive as your teaching and science skills.

Look! He's doing MATH!

I don't have a boss

Unemployed crackpot? Or just armchair pseudoscience crackpot? You decide!

, and I only have one life. I can not afford to dig around without a clear purpose.

I have only one life and strangely enough I am willing to waste chunks of it helping to expose charaltans who talk big and want people to give them credit for skills they really can't show.

My job is to figure out a question, and guide the direction of research.

OK, so now if, again, you actually are a university instructor, you are clearly not a "research faculty", and it is likely you have no research requirement for your work. You get to stand and pontificate without actually keeping yourself "sharp".

If you think that anyone believes you are a "real scientist" simply because you can ask an unending stream of questions, well, you should get that other "think" you have coming to you.

If you are interested in carbonate oceanography, what you need is a question, not to repeat a whole bunch of details that you already know.

Ah, but as I said, I myself am learning this as we speak as well! What I find fascinating is that it is highly unlikely you understand any of this stuff to any great extent.

I'd dearly love to be proven disastrously wrong (how many times have I said that on this board, and to you?--quite a few). I'd love to see you come on here with a ton of your own thoughts fleshed out with gory *detail* and in a blazing streak across this board.

But after several months of seeing your coprolite collection, I have learned not to expect much.

So, again, if you want to take this opportunity to declare yourself "insulted" and use this as your "chicken out" moment, do so.

OTHERWISE, POST SOME SCIENCE.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Once for a while, if convenient, I will teach you something:

Wow! More bluster!

You talk big games, you talk and talk and talk, and yet you never bring the game.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Of course it is possible. And it SHOULD be so.

But that would require that you find some scientists on your side of the discussion, right? I mean, if you want to talk science from the Creationist side, maybe you should go find some scientists.

You may not recognize them, they usually don't look like this:

(Although this one is wearing a hat like Bob Bakker)



(Never mind, I don't expect you to know who Bob Bakker is... )

 

[paug]

Of course it is possible. And it SHOULD be so.

STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW MAN

I never said that it wouldn't be possible, or that it shouldn't be so - I'm just saying it was inevitable.

 

[juvenissun]

If you think that anyone believes you are a "real scientist" simply because you can ask an unending stream of questions, well, you should get that other "think" you have coming to you.

As you wish. I won't do that again.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As you wish. I won't do that again.

That's the stuff! Now talk science. DOn't just ask your unending stream of questions.

I am looking forward to your erudition.