• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The sea floor is dissolving because of anthropogenic CO2

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,494
Reaction score
28,835
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:

The ocean floor as we know it is dissolving rapidly as a result of human activity.

Normally the deep sea bottom is a chalky white. It’s composed, to a large extent, of the mineral calcite (CaCO3) formed from the skeletons and shells of many planktonic organisms and corals. The seafloor plays a crucial role in controlling the degree of ocean acidification. The dissolution of calcite neutralizes the acidity of the CO2, and in the process prevents seawater from becoming too acidic. But these days, at least in certain hotspots such as the Northern Atlantic and the southern Oceans, the ocean’s chalky bed is becoming more of a murky brown. As a result of human activities the level of CO2 in the water is so high, and the water is so acidic, that the calcite is simply being dissolved.

The McGill-led research team who published their results this week in a study in PNAS believe that what they are seeing today is only a foretaste of the way that the ocean floor will most likely be affected in future.
Click to expand...

Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
 
Threegoofs said:
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:



Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
Click to expand...

It will be good for the fish and whales. The extra calcium will help their bones
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]The Total Myth of Ocean Acidification[/h][FONT=&quot]The Fable of Chicken Little of the Sea Guest essay by David Middleton, When it comes to debunking Gorebal Warming, Chicken Little of the Sea (“ocean acidification”) and other Warmunist myths, my favorite starting points are my old college textbooks. Way back in the Pleistocene (spring semester 1979) in Marine Science I, our professor, Robert…
[/FONT]
June 5, 2018 in Ocean acidification.
 
I am absolutely a believer in climate science. I have no doubts that we're mucking up the air, water, sky and entire planet and leaving a great big mess for future generations to have to suffer with and try to figure out how to undo the damage we left to them.

Having said that, I have to call BS on most of the article, let me explain why. The first error that I caught was pretty easy to spot by the statement, "the ocean floor as we know it", See? Right there, that's BS. We have absolutely no idea about 90% of the ocean we can only observe and study..... at the most 5% of it so whatever we observe and detect in that 5% doesn't mean the other 95% is in the same condition, that's just not how it works.

"The researchers created a set of seafloor-like micro-environments in the laboratory, reproducing abyssal bottom currents, seawater temperature and chemistry as well as sediment compositions." This is a BS study, but it goes on.... "The speed estimates for ocean-bottom currents came from a high-resolution ocean model developed by University of Michigan physical oceanographer Brian Arbic and a former postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory, David Trossman, who is now a research associate at the University of Texas-Austin." Knew it, BS model simulations. A computer model simulation can run a certain number of variables under a certain set of circumstances but it cannot run every single variable that exists in the very same and exact set of circumstances than it does in real life. Computer model simulations are fancy projections easy to model your way and you redirect results in a way you would expect or want. The best and most clear example of that is tsunami models

Have you noticed how big ass earthquakes always trigger tsunami alerts? A big-ass earthquake happens on the ocean and the model says 'OH SH*T 10 foot waves coming to California!' But they never ever, reach shore, nothing happens. Even without being a programmer or math-magician I can tell you which variable they ignore and which variables they enhance for the "model" tsunamis to reach California and it goes the same for most model computer simulations, they are just fancy toys, and not actual scientific tools. Another example, models showed that the South Pole hole would only get bigger and bigger by 2010. Well, it recovered almost fully in five years. Nature ignored all the model simulations. Simulators are statistical programs. That means one thing only, that they can be manipulated by human bias, that's why they are flawed.

The research was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the U.S. National Science Foundation.knew it...... BS American donors forcing them to publish "anything" for the sake of publishing
 
Threegoofs said:
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:



Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
Click to expand...

How did the Earth survive before people came along to fix it?
 
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
Click to expand...

Thank god the experts have arrived, letting us know that PNAS is accepting drivel and passing it off as science.
 
Threegoofs said:
Thank god the experts have arrived, letting us know that PNAS is accepting drivel and passing it off as science.
Click to expand...

This world must be an utterly terrifying place for you.

The total lack of any ability to quantify anything, especially a rsik, must be a crippling thing. Always responding in panic to any threat anybody says is out there. No way of making your own decisions. How do you cope?
 
Threegoofs said:
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:



Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
Click to expand...

This is simply calcium that has fallen out of the water. Now being reclaimed.

I wonder how you will spin this.

Remember I said in the past, that the ocean was self buffering?

So we have probably removed in the neighborhood of 250 gigatons of lime, or about 7 grams per square meter, over the last 150 years.

It isn't that simple though. All this does is change the depth of where there is balance at. The ocean floor that is important will remain unchanged. This only occurs in deep waters.

OMG...

"I'm scared..." says chicken little. "The sky is falling and it's going to break the sea floor!"
 
Last edited:
Yep...

A reliable source, your first link:

But these days, at least in certain hotspots such as the Northern Atlantic and the southern Oceans, the ocean’s chalky bed is becoming more of a murky brown. As a result of human activities the level of CO2 in the water is so high, and the water is so acidic, that the calcite is simply being dissolved.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Acidic...

LOL...

The second link does not agree with the first.
 
So just how are these changes in depth going to matter?

Untitled.jpg
 
Tim the plumber said:
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
Click to expand...
Just work out how much cyanide constitutes a fatal dose, and divide it by the mass of a human being. Then try to argue that the amount is so close to zero that it shouldn't be important.

News flash! You don't need insanely high concentrations to produce a substantial effect. How do you not understand that by now?
 
Tim the plumber said:
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
Click to expand...

The paper is quite good. It's the first link that is a total joke.
 
Visbek said:
Just work out how much cyanide constitutes a fatal dose, and divide it by the mass of a human being. Then try to argue that the amount is so close to zero that it shouldn't be important.

News flash! You don't need insanely high concentrations to produce a substantial effect. How do you not understand that by now?
Click to expand...

If you have that number and take a does that is a millionth of it would you bother the doctor with that?
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you have that number and take a does that is a millionth of it would you bother the doctor with that?
Click to expand...
When, exactly, did you quantify the amount of CO2 emissions required to have an impact on the oceans? Did I miss your paper in Nature?
 
Threegoofs said:
An article was just published in PNAS that looks a bit concerning.


From the news release:



Alterations to seabed raise fears for future | Newsroom - McGill University

The implications of this isn’t too dramatic for us- it will eventually screw up geologic climate records and leave a stamp for the next civilization to detect how this one screwed up. The CaCO3, of course, is buffering the excess carbonic acid, helping to temper acidification in the future. No one really expected the seafloors this deep to be dissolving this quickly and this early, however.

Article here:
Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2 | PNAS

I look forward to all the deniers suddenly becoming experts on oceanography, chemistry and benthic zones and telling us how this all means nothing and PNAS is just a biased blog site.
Click to expand...

Olivier Sulpis, Bernard P. Boudreau, Alfonso Mucci, Chris Jenkins, David S. Trossman, Brian K. Arbic, and Robert M. Key, who wrote this paper, are ignoring chemistry and physics. Just because some twits write a paper, it doesn't make it science, nor does it prove it's True. See the Ignoble Prize for further examples.

it is not possible to acidify the oceans. Ocean water is alkaline. You cannot acidify an alkaline. That is a fundamental principle in acid-base chemistry.

The amount of dissolved CO2 in ocean water is about the same as the air above it. This varies from place to place since CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Dissolved CO2 is not carbonic acid. Less than 1% of the dissolved carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid, leaving the concentration of carbonic acid in ocean water typically around 4ppm these days, or 0.0004% of the ocean water by volume. The reaction is bidirectional. Too much carbonic acid simply disassociates and becomes dissolved CO2. Too much dissolved CO2 produces some carbonic acid.

Carbonic acid does indeed dissolve limestone.It is this dissolution that frees up the calcium for marine critters like crabs and shellfish. Carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the life of these critters. The rate of dissolution is set by the concentration level of carbonic acid to limestone. This reaction is also bidirectional. Too much dissolved calcium in the water precipitates out and becomes limestone. Too much carbonic acid dissolves limestone.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How such drivel can be passed as sciene is beyond me.

Just work out how much CO2 we have pumped out and dived it by the size of the world's oceans. Then try to argue that this number so close to zero is important.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it can't be passed off as science at all.
 
Visbek said:
Just work out how much cyanide constitutes a fatal dose, and divide it by the mass of a human being. Then try to argue that the amount is so close to zero that it shouldn't be important.

News flash! You don't need insanely high concentrations to produce a substantial effect. How do you not understand that by now?
Click to expand...

Neither CO2 nor carbonic acid is cynanide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom