Seeding oceans with iron could help limit global warming

[konradv]

Since the whole point of GW theory is that we're adding too much of something to the environment, I'd rather not add something else. I prefer finding ways to limit adding CO2.

 

[Trakar]

No, NASA isn't lying. You just happen to have an IQ of 2 or less.

"Spectroscopic studies of carbonic acid

Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

Is that how it works?

No, that is simply your misunderstanding of what is stated.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Story of the Multiflora Rose:


In 1947, the Missouri Conservation Commission, in response to the abandonment of barbed wire fencing after the sale of farmland to commercial and residential developement, declared that they would offer multiflora rose plants as a living self-mending fence replacement and distributed the seedlings free of charge to any farmer that would remove his barbed wire or weld wire fencing.

Over 10,000,000 seedlings were distributed annually.

The law of unintended consequences revealed itself with a vengeance.

It turns out that birds love to eat the seeds of multifloral roses, but of course cannot digest them...so everywhere a bird shits, a multifloral rose springs up.

Status:


Invasive. Native to Japan. During the last century, federal and many state conservation agencies [Especially Missouri] promoted the planting of multiflora rose in an effort to control erosion and provide cover and winter food for wildlife. Those hopeful ideas waned when the plant began to spread and became a serious invader of agricultural lands, pastures and native ecosystems throughout the eastern United States. Now, it is considered an invasive plant; in 1983, the state of Missouri declared it a noxious weed.

Multiflora Rose | Missouri Department of Conservation

I don't think there has been a single attempt to control the environment or nature that hasn't backfired.

In WI after a series of bad forest fires, they planted almost exclusively fast growing jack pine. Then 30 years later, mass die offs began because of no biodiversity, health and lifespan of the tree, and they were right back where they started 30 years before. They had to do massive clear cuts and replantings with a more diverse seedling crop. That worked better... but it's far from what it once was where nature is left to it's own devises.

 

[Trakar]

I don't think there has been a single attempt to control the environment or nature that hasn't backfired.

CFC bans

Acid rain remediation

Toxic waste cleanup

Clean air and water regulations

all of these seem to have generated successes without major consequences (backfires)

That worked better... but it's far from what it once was where nature is left to it's own devises.

So you support the elimination of man's industrial and commercial emissions so that we can let nature interact according to its own "devises," rather than influencing and altering the natural systems with those emissions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, NASA isn't lying. You just happen to have an IQ of 2 or less.

"Spectroscopic studies of carbonic acid

Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

Is that how it works?

No, that is simply your misunderstanding of what is stated.

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

How much CO2 are we adding to the atmosphere again?

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't think there has been a single attempt to control the environment or nature that hasn't backfired.

CFC bans

Acid rain remediation

Toxic waste cleanup

Clean air and water regulations

all of these seem to have generated successes without major consequences (backfires)

That worked better... but it's far from what it once was where nature is left to it's own devises.

So you support the elimination of man's industrial and commercial emissions so that we can let nature interact according to its own "devises," rather than influencing and altering the natural systems with those emissions?

Not quite -- Actually SEVERAL of those had severe unintended consequences.. The most tragic of which was the insistence of EPA and CALEPA to allow MTBE as an oxygenate in gas to "clean the air".. Several city water supplies were drastically ruined with this carcinogen that can create it's own leaks..

See also Global Pollution and Prevention News: Global CFC ban and unintended consequences on the CFC ban.

 

[Trakar]

"Spectroscopic studies of carbonic acid

Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

Is that how it works?

No, that is simply your misunderstanding of what is stated.

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.

How much CO2 are we adding to the atmosphere again?

in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

 

[Oddball]

I don't think there has been a single attempt to control the environment or nature that hasn't backfired.

CFC bans

Acid rain remediation

Toxic waste cleanup

Clean air and water regulations

all of these seem to have generated successes without major consequences (backfires)

That worked better... but it's far from what it once was where nature is left to it's own devises.

So you support the elimination of man's industrial and commercial emissions so that we can let nature interact according to its own "devises," rather than influencing and altering the natural systems with those emissions?

Not quite -- Actually SEVERAL of those had severe unintended consequences.. The most tragic of which was the insistence of EPA and CALEPA to allow MTBE as an oxygenate in gas to "clean the air".. Several city water supplies were drastically ruined with this carcinogen that can create it's own leaks..

See also Global Pollution and Prevention News: Global CFC ban and unintended consequences on the CFC ban.

Lolberal do-gooders and unintended consequences of their do-goodery?

Well, there's something we don't see every day.

 

[Trakar]

See also Global Pollution and Prevention News: Global CFC ban and unintended consequences on the CFC ban.

Lolberal do-gooders and unintended consequences of their do-goodery?

Well, there's something we don't see every day.

It figures that people who have a hard time reading
would have a problem with the science

 

[Big Fitz]

CFC bans

Acid rain remediation

Toxic waste cleanup

Clean air and water regulations

all of these seem to have generated successes without major consequences (backfires)




So you support the elimination of man's industrial and commercial emissions so that we can let nature interact according to its own "devises," rather than influencing and altering the natural systems with those emissions?

Not quite -- Actually SEVERAL of those had severe unintended consequences.. The most tragic of which was the insistence of EPA and CALEPA to allow MTBE as an oxygenate in gas to "clean the air".. Several city water supplies were drastically ruined with this carcinogen that can create it's own leaks..

See also Global Pollution and Prevention News: Global CFC ban and unintended consequences on the CFC ban.

Lolberal do-gooders and unintended consequences of their do-goodery?

Well, there's something we don't see every day.

You mean like not being able to differentiate between dealing with garbage and toxins and trying to control the environment?

Like not thinking past the consequences of one action and seeing the effects the reactions they cause when they interact?

Like thinking they live in a world where their good intentions counteract the laws of nature and science?

Yeahhhh...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, that is simply your misunderstanding of what is stated.

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.

How much CO2 are we adding to the atmosphere again?

in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

I see.

340 billion tons.

Hmm

Are you sure that's the right number cause that's see awfully large to me?

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.





in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

I see.

340 billion tons.

Hmm

Are you sure that's the right number cause that's see awfully large to me?

Soooo... we're looking at a global iron shortage and iron mining boom that will do catastrophic damage to the planet...

if you listen to the kooks.

Then there's the question of how long this must go on, possible heavy metal poisoning from drinking too much water, the damage done to the animals who DON'T react well to powdered iron in the water.

Yeah, I can see this being without consequence or impact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.





in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.




pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

I see.

340 billion tons.

Hmm

Are you sure that's the right number cause that's see awfully large to me?

Soooo... we're looking at a global iron shortage and iron mining boom that will do catastrophic damage to the planet...

if you listen to the kooks.

Then there's the question of how long this must go on, possible heavy metal poisoning from drinking too much water, the damage done to the animals who DON'T react well to powdered iron in the water.

Yeah, I can see this being without consequence or impact.

Well sure there's that.

Then there's the issue while 340 BILLION TON!!! seems like a big number it's only .006% of Earth atmosphere, and then it has to acidify the ocean too! (What a workload!!)

Do you have any idea how large the oceans are?

Hint: Pretty big. A lot bigger than 340 Billion tons (!!!) (1.4E+21)

So 340 BILLION TONS!!! is only 0.000022% of the Earth oceans

So, it's physically impossible for 340 billion tons to increase CO2 in the air by even 100 PPM AND turn the oceans acidic.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's just make a borehole to the solid nickel iron core of the planet and mine that out. I'm sure that won't have any adverse affect to the planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, that is simply your misunderstanding of what is stated.

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.

How much CO2 are we adding to the atmosphere again?

in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

Which is a bloviating mathematical intimidation to distract you from the fact that it's a 26% increase in H+ concentrations -- not acidity. And ignores the proper acceptance and convienience of measuring acidity in Log scale.. Don't have the time to be precise-- but I would wager that by THESE STANDARDS --- Grapefruit Juice is in excess of 8000% more acidic than bottled water.. A fact that doesn't deter citrus juice enthusiasts. And really shouldn't be used to intimidate people..

An increase that just as likely could be blamed on melting ice or increased fresh water run-off (both pH 7.0) or a delayed reaction to the NOx and SOx maximums from 2 decades ago.

Whatever the cause -- the natural day to day -- hour to hour variations in coastal ecosystems FAR EXCEED the observed deviation from "average" in surface waters. And the more important factor is the RATE of increase in H+ ions in terms of biosphere adaptation and survival.. We would be retarded to expect to see any devasting effects of a 0.1 or 0.2 change in "average surface" pH --- but need to identify the CAUSE and RATE of this significant change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.





in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

Which is a bloviating mathematical intimidation to distract you from the fact that it's a 26% increase in H+ concentrations -- not acidity. And ignores the proper acceptance and convienience of measuring acidity in Log scale..

An increase that just as likely could be blamed on melting ice or increased fresh water run-off (both pH 7.0) or a delayed reaction to the NOx and SOx maximums from 2 decades ago.

Whatever the cause -- the natural day to day -- hour to hour variations in coastal ecosystems FAR EXCEED the observed deviation from "average" in surface waters. And the more important factor is the RATE of increase in H+ ions in terms of biosphere adaptation and survival.. We would be retarded to expect to see any devasting effects of a 0.1 or 0.2 change in "average surface" pH --- but need to identify the CAUSE and RATE of this significant change.

Show some respect, he's the only person ever to get a measurable increase in temperature from a 200PPM increase in CO2.

I don't think he just made that up.

Or did he?

 

[flacaltenn]

See the revised post at #35 --- It's a guess at the ph of Grapefruit juice.. Find the real pH diff between it and water -- Use his math --- and find some god-awful meaningless interpretation for the "acidity difference" between the two...

I would call that -- being academically "disengenuous" at best...

 

[Trakar]

Show some respect, he's the only person ever to get a measurable increase in temperature from a 200PPM increase in CO2.

You are simply incorrect.

The fact that this is new knowledge to you speaks more to your lack of scientific education and understanding than to the novelty of my results.

Additionally, how acidic fruit juice is, is irrelevent to whether or not the pH you expose the sperm, ovum and the larvae of base of food-chain seaspermia to impacts their survival and proliferation. Big difference between the the acidity we can tolerate in small samples and the pH levels we require to persist in constant exposure.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, I misunderstood. I have that problem a lot with AGW.

Apparently.

It appears to be psychological and deeply rooted.





in 2011, humanity added 37.5 billion tons of new carbon to the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years we have added ~340 billion tons of new carbon to our planet's atmosphere.

How is it dropping the pH to cause a 30% increase in oceanic acidity (as if there really was such a thing as "Average" ocean pH)

pH = - log10[aH+]

Δa/a1 = (a2-a1)/a1 = (10^-Δp) - 1

pH of the ocean changes from 8.2 - 8.1 = Δp = -0.1

fractional change in a = (10^0.1) - 1 = 1.259 - 1 = 0.259 rounded to one sigfig (significant figure) = 0.3 = 30% increase in acidification of ocean waters.

I see.

340 billion tons.

Hmm

Are you sure that's the right number cause that's see awfully large to me?

Indeed it is, but at the rate we are currently adding it, even if the increases stopped, we would add this much again over the next few decades.

 

[flacaltenn]

Show some respect, he's the only person ever to get a measurable increase in temperature from a 200PPM increase in CO2.

You are simply incorrect.

The fact that this is new knowledge to you speaks more to your lack of scientific education and understanding than to the novelty of my results.

Additionally, how acidic fruit juice is, is irrelevent to whether or not the pH you expose the sperm, ovum and the larvae of base of food-chain seaspermia to impacts their survival and proliferation. Big difference between the the acidity we can tolerate in small samples and the pH levels we require to persist in constant exposure.

Well then the HECK with grapefruit juice (actually in excess of 10000% more acidic than tap water --- Let's just look at pristine glacier melt water which is 920% more acidic than seawater..

OMG -- that sounds almost evil doesn't it? How can that not be immediately fatal?

But it's the stuff that mixes in coastal estuaries and falls as rain into the ocean - and species COPE with it. In fact -- coastal estuaries and most coral atolls have NATURAL fresh water mixing that causes the pH to vary 10X the increase we're currently measuring in the open Ocean.

That "30%" is a number fabrication DESIGNED to alarm the naive public.. To make it sound like IMMEDIATE crisis proportions and to get headlines. I'd hate to be the embarrassed scientists at NOAA that have to work under those conditions of progandizing their work.