Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[ChordatesLegacy]

I will give you creationists a clue, including juvenissun

LINK

 

[juvenissun]

I will give you creationists a clue, including juvenissun

LINK

Why only the Mediterranean region? Why don't you try to show the global salt deposit and related ages?

What is the age of the most recent salt deposit? How big is it? Could it take account for the global Na input since that time?

Go to give hard time to others with you half-bottle knowledge. Don't make me laugh at you.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Why only the Mediterranean region? quote]

Because it is the most recent (large scale) evaporation sequence and because it is Miocene in age, which I have been discussing on another thread.

Ho yes; it is impossible for creationists to explain all the earth evaporates (includes salt) in their mere 6000 years of biblical magical mystical history.

I bet you want even give it a go, like all creationists you ignore all the difficult questions.


Here are some more evoporite basins f--l

Late Carboniferous Variscan orogenic front, and the distribution of Permian Rotliegend sedimentary facies and Zechstein halite deposits

Lets see you creationists explain all the world evaporate deposits in the context of a 6000 year old Earth, I bet you cannot.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

If you like, here might be some thinking you can do:

The increase of global temperature will also increase the dissolution rate of solid carbonate on land, and will thus increase the input of Mg, Ca to the ocean. In turn, they will make the ocean water more alkaline. In this consideration, there will be a time lag between the lowering of pH in the ocean and later increase of pH due to the Mg/Ca input. How long would the time lag be? Are we seeing this effect today? I guess the time is not long enough for us to see any change on the river water chemistry. So everybody cried on the "crisis".

Can you make a model on this process? Plug in some values and see how it works.

 

[juvenissun]

Why only the Mediterranean region? quote]

Because it is the most recent (large scale) evaporation sequence and because it is Miocene in age, which I have been discussing on another thread.

Ho yes; it is impossible for creationists to explain all the earth evaporates (includes salt) in their mere 6000 years of biblical magical mystical history.

I bet you want even give it a go, like all creationists you ignore all the difficult questions.


Here are some more evoporite basins f--l

Late Carboniferous Variscan orogenic front, and the distribution of Permian Rotliegend sedimentary facies and Zechstein halite deposits

Lets see you creationists explain all the world evaporate deposits in the context of a 6000 year old Earth, I bet you cannot.

So, salt is the only Na sink you know. Right? If you can do calculation, then you "should" have converted to a YEC already.

That is what I called "half-bottle" knowledge.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

So, salt is the only Na sink you know. Right? If you can do calculation, then you "should" have converted to a YEC already.

That is what I called "half-bottle" knowledge.

Not at all, let's stick to the Med for the moment

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

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.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Given that these are Miocene deposits, which according to some creationists here do not even exist and others stating that all Tertiary sediments fit into a period of several hundred years between the magical mystical flood and start of the ice age, don’t you think creationists have a lot of explaining to do.

Of course that’s easy when your tool of choose is magical mysticism in expaining the natural world.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Gypsum of the Yesares member of the Sorbas basin, formed in association with the Messinian salinity crisis. The gypsum can be clearly seen to have formed at the sediment surface, forming cones separated by laminated sediments.

LINK

Come on creationists lets see you explain the Messinian salinity crisis in the Mediterranean, which I suspect you will never do.

After that we will work through all the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic evaporate basins all of which require evaporation of long time periods and all occurring in the magical mystical biblical flood deposits.

I cannot wait to hear your explanations

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

OK: From the USGS site :

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02).

There is a little table comparing hot spot, convergent and divergent plate boundaries. In each case the top two major volume % components of volcanic gases are H2O and CO2.

QED.

(Oh, and one other question, what is the point you wish to make about the "inorganic" origin of carbon here? I don't understand what you are getting at?)

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?

Well, I suppose one could hypothesize that shortly after the proto-oceans "rained out" and air was high in CO2 that an equilibrium could be established using the above mentioned reactions (I am tired of typing out the reactions in detail over and over considering that you have put almost no effort into this science discussion) and an attendant rate expression.

Rather than asking the questions all the time, try making a scientific point as well. While I'm obviously happy to talk the science, I was rather under the impression you thought you could talk the science as well. Right now all I see from you are questions and cut-n-paste references.

I look forward to your submitting some science here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you like, here might be some thinking you can do:

So do tell me, again, why I'm the one who has to go "do" things while all you do is "cut-n-paste"? I am beginning to wonder if all you got is "questions" for others to answer for you or if you understand the science?

I thought we were having a "discussion" here and not just you telling me what to do.

The increase of global temperature will also increase the dissolution rate of solid carbonate on land

Here's a perfect chance for you to do some simple "teaching":

Explain the mechanism, please.

Can you make a model on this process? Plug in some values and see how it works.

I'd be really happy if you explained the chemistry of the "increase in temperature = increase in terrestrial carbonate dissolution rates".

Now I will readily grant that increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and other acid-rain components like SOx (like we humans are currently actively doing on a daily basis) may cause decreases in meteoritic pH and thus increase carbonate dissolution, and increased CO2 can cause increases in global temperatures, but that isn't what you said. You stated:

The increase of global temperature will also increase the dissolution rate of solid carbonate on land

I would be interested in learning this linkage.

Please explain.

 

[thaumaturgy]

There may be a way to bring the two sub-discussions here together;

we are talking about salinity in the oceans and carbonate chemistry in the oceans.

Indeed, carbon dioxide solubility in the oceans is impacted not only by temperature but also salinity. (SOURCE)

Maybe there is a common ground we can exploit here?

 

[Vene]

Hmm, I'm still seeing a pattern here. Juv displays ignorance of a subject, a scientist posts (including details and citations). Juv denies it (no detail, no citations). And then Juv tells the scientists to come up with a mechanism for him.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hmm, I'm still seeing a pattern here. Juv displays ignorance of a subject, a scientist posts (including details and citations). Juv denies it (no detail, no citations). And then Juv tells the scientists to come up with a mechanism for him.

Indeed this is definitely the case here. Juvenissun has, to his credit, posted a list of references and when I discussed, in depth one of the references he posted in this post, he follows up several posts later and says:

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.

But you have to love his general attitude toward actual scientists on the board:

You are very cocky.
...
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.

Read again my reply. I***t.

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

All that coming from a man who, to this point, has only "cut-n-pasted" an abstract from a paper without any explanation as to his point, listed a bunch of references, without detail or information, and cut-n-pasted a delta [sup]13[/sup]O graph that he failed to explain how he thought it related to his point. (I am rusty on stable isotope geochem, so it would have helped to know he knew what he was talking about when he posted it if he had bothered to explain it.)

Cojones of solid steel.

Or the most egregious troll known to humankind.

Either way I'm still expecting he will produce some scientific information that he himself has processed even cursorily. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[juvenissun]

OK: From the USGS site :



There is a little table comparing hot spot, convergent and divergent plate boundaries. In each case the top two major volume % components of volcanic gases are H2O and CO2.

QED.

(Oh, and one other question, what is the point you wish to make about the "inorganic" origin of carbon here? I don't understand what you are getting at?)



Well, I suppose one could hypothesize that shortly after the proto-oceans "rained out" and air was high in CO2 that an equilibrium could be established using the above mentioned reactions (I am tired of typing out the reactions in detail over and over considering that you have put almost no effort into this science discussion) and an attendant rate expression.

Rather than asking the questions all the time, try making a scientific point as well. While I'm obviously happy to talk the science, I was rather under the impression you thought you could talk the science as well. Right now all I see from you are questions and cut-n-paste references.

I look forward to your submitting some science here.

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

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

 

[juvenissun]

There may be a way to bring the two sub-discussions here together;

we are talking about salinity in the oceans and carbonate chemistry in the oceans.

Indeed, carbon dioxide solubility in the oceans is impacted not only by temperature but also salinity. (SOURCE)

Maybe there is a common ground we can exploit here?

I like this type of post. Simple, thoughtful and challenging. Much better than your lengthy "explanation".

Let me think about it for a moment.

 

[juvenissun]

So do tell me, again, why I'm the one who has to go "do" things while all you do is "cut-n-paste"? I am beginning to wonder if all you got is "questions" for others to answer for you or if you understand the science?

I thought we were having a "discussion" here and not just you telling me what to do.



Here's a perfect chance for you to do some simple "teaching":

Explain the mechanism, please.

If you do not like to do anything, that is fine with me. I am just presenting an idea for you to model, if you like. Well, it is likely that someone else has already done the work. Don't bother.

Increase temperature <-- more CO2 in air --> more acidic the rain, the surface water --> faster dissolution on limestone. Also, warmer temperature will also speed up the dissolution.

What else to explain?

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you do not like to do anything, that is fine with me.

Stop misrepresenting my efforts. I have so far posted more thorough descriptions of science than you have. Thanks. I'd appreciate it if you could maintain something like honesty when representing what I have done so far.

Increase temperature <-- more CO2 in air --> more acidic the rain, the surface water --> faster dissolution on limestone. Also, warmer temperature will also speed up the dissolution.

What else to explain?

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.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I like this type of post. Simple, thoughtful and challenging. Much better than your lengthy "explanation".

It's also largely content-free. It's an idea. I am doubting very highly that you will be responsible for posting any substantive information on this topic. It will be up to Chordates, Vene and myself to post actual science.

Let me think about it for a moment.

You seem to be doing a lot of "thinking" and not a lot of "discussing". Maybe you should post more information.

And unlike you, I am a real scientist so lengthy "explanations" are kinda my thing. I'm sure Vene and Chordates will readily agree.

Sometimes I do want a short simple answer, but I realize that the lengthy explanation is often the one with value.

 

[astroweezer]

If you like, here might be some thinking you can do:

The increase of global temperature will also increase the dissolution rate of solid carbonate on land, and will thus increase the input of Mg, Ca to the ocean. In turn, they will make the ocean water more alkaline. In this consideration, there will be a time lag between the lowering of pH in the ocean and later increase of pH due to the Mg/Ca input. How long would the time lag be? Are we seeing this effect today? I guess the time is not long enough for us to see any change on the river water chemistry. So everybody cried on the "crisis".

Can you make a model on this process? Plug in some values and see how it works.

Wow, you have no clue on how chemistry works. First of all, metallic cations (which is what you get when you dissolve the salt) are not alkaline ions....they are acidic, which means the pH would go down! In fact, calcium ion is pH neutral.