10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

Do you think, that 0,7-1, 4 Gt of CaCO_3 falling from upper layers of water on the ocean bottom or into the deepnesses every year is "tiny amounts"?

I asked about Calcium ions ... not Calcium compounds ...

You're just throwing sciency words out here hoping they make sense ... they don't ... you're violating the conservation of mass until you can explain where the Calcium comes from to bond with the CO2 to form CaCO3 ...
Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute
"
CALCIUM, GEOLOGY AND THE HYDROSPHERE
In the earth’s crust calcium makes up about 3.4% of the mass, exceeded by iron, 4.7%, aluminum, 7.5%, silicon 25.8% and oxygen 49.5%. Calcium, one of the elements of the original crust of the earth, is today found in igneous rocks as calcium silicates and in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks as calcium carbonates. The processes involved in weathering rocks, especially where some acid is present, as carbon dioxide dissolved in water or from growing lichens, are able to free some calcium from its sequestered location and send it on its way as a cation attracted to a water molecule.
Water carries the calcium cations from the highlands to the oceans. Concentrations of Ca ++ in fresh water range from 0.01 to 0.1 millimolar. 8 High concentrations of calcium and/or magnesium cations in fresh water create what is called hard water. In seawater Ca ++ concentrations are 100 to 1000 times higher at 10 millimolar, with slightly greater concentrations in the deeper, colder water. This calcium then spends, on the average, one million years in the ocean before it appears on land again. The calcium ion remains in the sea water until it is precipitated out as calcium carbonate or (more rarely) as calcium sulfate, gypsum, which when heated becomes plaster of paris.

The upper levels of the ocean are supersaturated with Ca ++ and carbonate, Ca --3 , ions. This means that all of these species which can be held in solution are in solution. The amount varies with different locations and conditions with saturation being greatest in warm shallow water with lower levels of CO2, because of photosynthesis and temperature. In these locations CaCO3 precipitates readily either inorganically or with the help of organisms. Organisms can accomplish this by building shells. This is one of the processes called biomineralization. As the organisms die their hard or mineralized parts, shells, fall to the ocean floor and accumulate or dissolve depending on depth, temperature and pressure. Shells and such which fall to the bottom of the deep parts of the ocean are most often redissolved because the deeper waters can hold more CO2 and are colder. The division between where the CaCO3 dissolves and accumulates is called the lysocline.

The mechanisms which cause CaCO3 accumulation in water are various, fascinating and not fully understood. Microscopic life, heterotrophic and photoautotrophic, is responsible for much of the deposition. Simkiss says the oldest evidence for life on earth is probably the “algal limestones” of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) which are dated as 2.7 billion years old. 9 Thomas H. Huxley, in a 1868 lecture to working men titled “On a Piece of Chalk,” 10 argues that the tiny organism Globigerina is responsible for much of the limestone which underlies Europe. Kormondy 11 states that some aquatic plants occurring in alkaline waters release CaCO3 as a by-product of photosynthetic assimilation. As an example he says that 100 kg of Elodea canadensis can precipitate 2 kg of CaCO3 in 10 hours of sunlight under natural conditions.

The deposited CaCO3 can be mixed with other sediments from the sea or washed from the land depending on its location.

How does the calcium get back on land after if has done its time in the ocean, Obviously some is brought back as birds, animals and man harvest seafood, especially shellfish, and eat it on land, discarding the shells. The Indians did this when they harvested fish and planted it under their corn. (The form of calcium is different in fish skeletons. See below.) The High School in the Community gardens make use of compost which is created by pigs from supermarket and resturant wastes and leaves. Seashells are one of the few recognizable items in the compost, slow release calcium sources.

The majority of calcium, however, takes a different route back to the land. It takes a ride on a major geological process. The movements of crustal plates and continental land masses with various upthrusts has brought many of these accumulated CaCO3 deposits to or near the surface as limestone or, if it has undergone metamorphosis by pressure and temperature, as marble. Much of Europe and the central part of the United States east of the Mississippi River are underlain with limestone. The white cliffs of Dover are limestone. The northwestern part of Connecticut has bands of marble sandwiched between layers of metamorphosed sandstone and shale, indicating past open ocean sedimentary environment in a warm climate.

Calcium can also make it back to land through the evaporation of brackish inland seas and the processes which produce reefs."



What's funny is you're using "1.4 gigatons" like we should be impressed or something ... using molar values of mass, this is only 1/20th of what we're looking for ... do you know what a "mole" is and how it's used in this context? ...
First - 1/20th is rather important part and should not be ignored. Second - more fertilizers we'll use on our fields, more fertilizers will be in the seas, more CO_2 will become CaCO_3, laying on the ocean bottom.

Good .. thank you ... how much CO2 does 10 millimolar Ca++ sequester per year? ... and how do you think this compares to biological activity? ...
 
more CO_2 in the water means increased productivity of the oceanic ecosystems, which means increased speed of CaCO_3 sedimentation. More CO_2 -> less CO_2. Self regulation and negative feedback, you know.

That process removes CO2 over millions of years. Thus, it doesn't help in the short term. Thus, there's no point in bringing it up.

What about that confuses you so much?

How long after Krakatoa erruption, the CO_2 level was increased? Three years? Five? Hardly more.

Zero years. Ice cores spanning the Krakatoa eruption showed no measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Volcanic eruptions are insignificant CO2 sources compared to human emissions. It would take massive sustained volcanic eruptions to raise CO2 levels, and Krakatoa wasn't at that level.
 
First - high levels of CO_2 are good, not bad (for plants and, therefore for humans). Second, there is such thing as water circulation. Third, the banner "Use more fertilizers! " sounds much better than "Use less fuel! " at least because it means more food.

Agreed, higher CO2 concentrations are helpful to plants, although other nutrients limit how quickly plants can respond to these higher levels ...

There's no thermal convection in the oceans, vertical motion in greatly inhibited by warming the oceans at the surface, making the surface water more buoyant in the water column ... the hydrosaline circulation in minimal, and only occurs in a few places ... atmospheric gases dissolved in the oceans are left with diffusion as their primary mover, and that's a lengthy process ...

Back to our Ca^+2 ions? ...


There is most assuredly thermal convection in the oceans. Look up Meridional Overturning Circulation. It is driven by water being chilled at the poles. Water attains its maximum density at 4C. Water lowered to such temperatures near the poles sinks to the bottom. Continuously sinking water drives this dense layer away from the poles. Flows from the north and south meet at the equator and upwell, bringing dissolved nutrients to the surface. This water is eventually returned to the poles in a large, slow, classic convection current.
 
There is most assuredly thermal convection in the oceans. Look up Meridional Overturning Circulation. It is driven by water being chilled at the poles. Water attains its maximum density at 4C. Water lowered to such temperatures near the poles sinks to the bottom. Continuously sinking water drives this dense layer away from the poles. Flows from the north and south meet at the equator and upwell, bringing dissolved nutrients to the surface. This water is eventually returned to the poles in a large, slow, classic convection current.

The AMOC is a hydrosaline current caused by fresh water entering the ocean and pushing salt water down due to density differences ... not temperature differences ... in fact, the fresh water enters the oceans at 0ºC, colder than the salt water ... this is a very very slow process compared to the surface currents ... also it is a region effect in what is comparatively a large sea rather than a small ocean ...

No ... how Hollywood movies explain this isn't true ... that's made up for dramatic effects ... I specifically posted the term "thermal convection", that has a very specific definition ... one could nitpick that as redundant, since convection is strictly a thermal event, but who would do that to me? ...
 
I suggest you check a few links, because I don't see ANYONE mentioning fresh water:
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia : "It is characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and a southward flow of colder, deep waters that are part of the thermohaline circulation. "
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/td0802.pdf : characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and a southward flow of colder water in the deep Atlantic.
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia: The AMOC is a large system of ocean currents, like a conveyor belt, driven by differences in temperature and salt content – the water’s density. As warm water flows northwards it cools and some evaporation occurs, which increases the amount of salt. Low temperature and a high salt content make the water denser, and this dense water sinks deep into the ocean. The cold, dense water slowly spreads southwards, several kilometres below the surface. Eventually, it gets pulled back to the surface and warms in a process called “upwelling” and the circulation is complete.

Water attains maximum density at 4C, not 0. And 0 ppt fresh water is certainly going to have trouble sinking in 35 ppt saltwater
 
Last edited:
If man-kind is emitting 35 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere ... then we should find an addition 35 gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ..
False, as the ocean is a carbon sink. This nonsense is why everyone should get their info from the global scientific community, and not uneducated, right wight blogger dumbasses.
 
I suggest you check a few links, because I don't see ANYONE mentioning fresh water:
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia : "It is characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and a southward flow of colder, deep waters that are part of the thermohaline circulation. "
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/td0802.pdf : characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and a southward flow of colder water in the deep Atlantic.
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia: The AMOC is a large system of ocean currents, like a conveyor belt, driven by differences in temperature and salt content – the water’s density. As warm water flows northwards it cools and some evaporation occurs, which increases the amount of salt. Low temperature and a high salt content make the water denser, and this dense water sinks deep into the ocean. The cold, dense water slowly spreads southwards, several kilometres below the surface. Eventually, it gets pulled back to the surface and warms in a process called “upwelling” and the circulation is complete.

Water attains maximum density at 4C, not 0. And 0 ppt fresh water is certainly going to have trouble sinking in 35 ppt saltwater

Fresh water is less dense than salt water at these temperatures ... as the fresh water rolls off the ice sheet, it sits along the top of the salt water ... water seeks it's own level, so the weight of this fresh water pushes the salt water down ... hydrosaline circulation ...

Volumes here are small, very little energy can be sequestered this way ... and is generally considered a trivial factor in the Earth's energy budget ...

You need to check on the properties of salt water, it's definitely more dense and only fresh water has it's highest density at 4ºC, that temperature is lowered as we add salt along with it's freezing point ...
 
If man-kind is emitting 35 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere ... then we should find an addition 35 gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ..
False, as the ocean is a carbon sink. This nonsense is why everyone should get their info from the global scientific community, and not uneducated, right wight blogger dumbasses.

The question is does the ocean sinking HALF man-kind's emissions? ... do the math yourself ...
 
If man-kind is emitting 35 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere ... then we should find an addition 35 gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ..
False, as the ocean is a carbon sink. This nonsense is why everyone should get their info from the global scientific community, and not uneducated, right wight blogger dumbasses.

The question is does the ocean sinking HALF man-kind's emissions? ... do the math yourself ...
And it can sink much more if we'll use more fertilizers.
 
And it can sink much more if we'll use more fertilizers.

Yes ... biology can only sink as much carbon as the other nutrients allow ... generally it's nitrogen that comes up short ... and making nitrogen fertilizer is hardly a carbon-neutral process ... but it's an idea worth exploring and testing ...
 
And it can sink much more if we'll use more fertilizers.

Yes ... biology can only sink as much carbon as the other nutrients allow ... generally it's nitrogen that comes up short ... and making nitrogen fertilizer is hardly a carbon-neutral process ... but it's an idea worth exploring and testing ...
Phosphates and iron may be more important.
---------------------
Phytoplankton growth depends on the availability of carbon dioxide, sunlight, and nutrients. Phytoplankton, like land plants, require nutrients such as nitrate, phosphate, silicate, and calcium at various levels depending on the species. Some phytoplankton can fix nitrogen and can grow in areas where nitrate concentrations are low. They also require trace amounts of iron which limits phytoplankton growth in large areas of the ocean because iron concentrations are very low. Other factors influence phytoplankton growth rates, including water temperature and salinity, water depth, wind, and what kinds of predators are grazing on them.
----------------------------
"Exploring and testing"? It's not the way of environmentalism! Hyping, crying and showing off is! " "Use more phosphates -save the planet!" "Sink your car in the sea - poor algae need this iron! "
 
Believe in the science...

camels_doctors_whiteshirt.jpg
camels_doctors_whiteshirt.jpg

"Doctors do?"

 
Yeah plus there is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'......How they put that one over on people is beyond me.

Climatologists complained about it ... so we invented a New Speak term "climate scientists" for folks who failed a few too many math classes ...
Don’t forget coding skills...in order to be a climate scientist very poor coding skills is a requisite.
 
And we've got another denier who did the "DERP DERP DERP This is great I have to share it!" thing, not understand that it makes him look like a mental midget.

According to this logic, which most deniers praise, all science must be rejected because a virus is spreading. Yep, most deniers did eat lead paint chips by the bucket as a child. Normal people would note that theor conclusion has nothing to do with their premise, but these are deniers, and they're dumber than dogshit kind of by definition.

The "You're dumb and I'm smart" argument is typical grade school tactics. Well done, and so predictable.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top