>>Excess carbon dioxide isn’t just building up in the atmosphere – the oceans are holding onto more of the stuff too, fizzing them up like soda. As the seas get warmer and more acidic, all kinds of havoc is wrought, and now a new study has identified yet another symptom. Researchers at Princeton and McGill Universities have found that the seafloor is beginning to dissolve as a result of human activity.

According to the Smithsonian’s Ocean Portal organization, about 525 billion tons of CO2 has been absorbed by the world’s oceans since the beginning of the industrial era, making seawater up to 30 percent more acidic than it was 200 years ago. That makes it the fastest known change in ocean chemistry in 50 million years or so, and the effects have already been devastating.<<

https://newatlas.com/human-activity-dissolving-seafloor/57119/

PermeateFree said:

>>Excess carbon dioxide isn’t just building up in the atmosphere – the oceans are holding onto more of the stuff too, fizzing them up like soda. As the seas get warmer and more acidic, all kinds of havoc is wrought, and now a new study has identified yet another symptom. Researchers at Princeton and McGill Universities have found that the seafloor is beginning to dissolve as a result of human activity.

According to the Smithsonian’s Ocean Portal organization, about 525 billion tons of CO2 has been absorbed by the world’s oceans since the beginning of the industrial era, making seawater up to 30 percent more acidic than it was 200 years ago. That makes it the fastest known change in ocean chemistry in 50 million years or so, and the effects have already been devastating.<<

https://newatlas.com/human-activity-dissolving-seafloor/57119/

None of the above is true.

My country’s government, and that of the United States, assure me of that.

I posted that in the ocean warming thread, it makes you wonder what other damage we have done that we haven’t discovered yet.

Cymek said:

I posted that in the ocean warming thread, it makes you wonder what other damage we have done that we haven’t discovered yet.

Myriads of things.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I posted that in the ocean warming thread, it makes you wonder what other damage we have done that we haven’t discovered yet.

Myriads of things.

Yes and those unknowns could make even our best case forecasts wrong

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I posted that in the ocean warming thread, it makes you wonder what other damage we have done that we haven’t discovered yet.

Myriads of things.

Yes and those unknowns could make even our best case forecasts wrong

Yes we live in interesting times.

I don’t know why papers like this never distinguish between acidity due to dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, and other causes of acidity. Dissolved CO2 and other acids have opposite effects, when it comes to the dissolving of sea floor carbonates for instance.

A New Hope: GEDI to Yield 3D Forest Carbon Map

A new NASA laser instrument set to launch to the International Space Station in December will help scientists create the first three-dimensional map of the world’s temperate and tropical forests. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation, or GEDI, is scheduled to launch on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. From the station, GEDI’s advanced laser technology will reveal the three-dimensional structure of forest ecosystems around the globe.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/gedi-to-measure-earths-forests

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know why papers like this never distinguish between acidity due to dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, and other causes of acidity. Dissolved CO2 and other acids have opposite effects, when it comes to the dissolving of sea floor carbonates for instance.

If you are that interested, why don’t you dig out the actual paper.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know why papers like this never distinguish between acidity due to dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, and other causes of acidity. Dissolved CO2 and other acids have opposite effects, when it comes to the dissolving of sea floor carbonates for instance.

If you are that interested, why don’t you dig out the actual paper.

I told you never to say that again.

I haven’t mentioned this before because it’s really too complicated for me to understand at this point.

It’s bleedin’ obvious that increases of carbon dissolved in the ocean directly result in greater deposition of carbon from the ocean in the form of calcium carbonate – both from biological sources (corals, molluscs, forams, diatoms) and abiological sources. Currently, 50% of the carbonate deposition in the ocean is biological and 50% abiological. This is independent of the amount of calcium in the ocean because calcium at 411 ppm is present in much higher concentrations than carbon in the ocean at 28 ppm (and because the retention time for carbon in the ocean is less than that for calcium in the oceans). It’s called “conservation of mass”. So the calcium from the solution of limestone and clays on land (resulting in hard water) can be taken out of the equation.

But there’s a subtlety. Dissolved carbon in the oceans exists in three different forms: as CO ₂, as CO ₃ ^2-, and as HCO ₃ ^-. There’s a chemical reaction CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^-. So it can be claimed that increasing CO ₂ in the oceans results in the solution of CO ₃ ^2- off the ocean bed, a reduction of the abiological deposition.

I’m not prepared to accept that subtlety without question for two reasons. One is that a recent study showed that the biological generation of the calcium carbonate that deposits on the ocean floor can occur both from from carbon in the form of CO ₂, which is the most efficient, and also from carbon in the form of HCO ₃ ^-.

So, putting it all together, what have we got? We have that dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans increases the biological generation of calcium carbonate on the ocean floor, and helps the growth of corals, molluscs, forams and diatoms. It helps the growth of plankton in general, and therefore all marine life.

But dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans may temporarily reduce the abiological deposition of calcium carbonate as the balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- = 2HCO ₃ ^- shifts to the right until a balance is again attained. That’s what the OP paper is about.

I called it a subtlety, and the above is not particularly subtle. The rest of the subtlety is that the left-right balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^- also depends on other factors not directly related to the level of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Particularly on the amount of organic acids pouring into the oceans from the forests (more forest = more organic acids = less abiological deposition of carbonate on the ocean floor), but also on the production of sulphurous acid H ₂ SO ₃ that used to be produced by burning biomass and fossil fuels – before low sulphur fuels were mandated and before the installation of sulphur dioxide scrubbers in industrial plants.

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know why papers like this never distinguish between acidity due to dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, and other causes of acidity. Dissolved CO2 and other acids have opposite effects, when it comes to the dissolving of sea floor carbonates for instance.

If you are that interested, why don’t you dig out the actual paper.

I told you never to say that again.

I haven’t mentioned this before because it’s really too complicated for me to understand at this point.

It’s bleedin’ obvious that increases of carbon dissolved in the ocean directly result in greater deposition of carbon from the ocean in the form of calcium carbonate – both from biological sources (corals, molluscs, forams, diatoms) and abiological sources. Currently, 50% of the carbonate deposition in the ocean is biological and 50% abiological. This is independent of the amount of calcium in the ocean because calcium at 411 ppm is present in much higher concentrations than carbon in the ocean at 28 ppm (and because the retention time for carbon in the ocean is less than that for calcium in the oceans). It’s called “conservation of mass”. So the calcium from the solution of limestone and clays on land (resulting in hard water) can be taken out of the equation.

But there’s a subtlety. Dissolved carbon in the oceans exists in three different forms: as CO ₂, as CO ₃ ^2-, and as HCO ₃ ^-. There’s a chemical reaction CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^-. So it can be claimed that increasing CO ₂ in the oceans results in the solution of CO ₃ ^2- off the ocean bed, a reduction of the abiological deposition.

I’m not prepared to accept that subtlety without question for two reasons. One is that a recent study showed that the biological generation of the calcium carbonate that deposits on the ocean floor can occur both from from carbon in the form of CO ₂, which is the most efficient, and also from carbon in the form of HCO ₃ ^-.

So, putting it all together, what have we got? We have that dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans increases the biological generation of calcium carbonate on the ocean floor, and helps the growth of corals, molluscs, forams and diatoms. It helps the growth of plankton in general, and therefore all marine life.

But dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans may temporarily reduce the abiological deposition of calcium carbonate as the balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- = 2HCO ₃ ^- shifts to the right until a balance is again attained. That’s what the OP paper is about.

I called it a subtlety, and the above is not particularly subtle. The rest of the subtlety is that the left-right balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^- also depends on other factors not directly related to the level of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Particularly on the amount of organic acids pouring into the oceans from the forests (more forest = more organic acids = less abiological deposition of carbonate on the ocean floor), but also on the production of sulphurous acid H ₂ SO ₃ that used to be produced by burning biomass and fossil fuels – before low sulphur fuels were mandated and before the installation of sulphur dioxide scrubbers in industrial plants.

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

Well put together post, Moll.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

…

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

Well put together post, Moll.

Hmmm, I’m agreeing with PWM again.

It must be true.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

…

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

Well put together post, Moll.

Hmmm, I’m agreeing with PWM again.

It must be true.

He he.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

…

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

Well put together post, Moll.

Hmmm, I’m agreeing with PWM again.

It must be true.

Thirded.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well put together post, Moll.

Hmmm, I’m agreeing with PWM again.

It must be true.

Thirded.

Well, he did admit it made his brain hurt but yet he still had a good go at attempting to put it straight.

Well that’s nice, we can now disregard all research moll disagrees with. Saves a lot of worry, so please carry on as usual.

For those who have not bothered to read the OP.

>>The new study investigated the extent of the dissolving seafloor, and how much blame belongs to human influence. Basically, the deepest parts of the sea are already fairly acidic, thanks to higher pressure, lower temperature and stored CO2. But closer to the surface, conditions are less hostile, meaning calcium carbonate particles will accumulate on the seafloor at shallower depths. The point where the two transition is called the calcite compensation depth (CCD).

This depth is one of the main metrics of seafloor dissolution, since anything below that point will dissolve. The study examined recent databases of bottom-water chemistry and other conditions in the western North Atlantic Ocean, and found that the CCD there has risen by about 300 m (984 ft) since the beginning of the industrial era.

In the lab the team recreated the seafloor at different depths, to get a better understanding of what factors influence the dissolution of calcite. By modeling and comparing the rates of seafloor dissolution from preindustrial and modern times, the team was able to calculate the amount that can be classed as human-induced. In the Northern Atlantic, this was between 40 and 100 percent.

“For decades we have been monitoring the increasing levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as it moves from the atmosphere into the abyssal ocean,” says Robert Key, co-author of the study. “While expected, it is none the less remarkable that we can now document a direct influence of that process on carbonate sediments. It will be really interesting to see if we can further support this result with new data generated by autonomous floats in the Southern Ocean.”

The next steps for the team are to model the seabeds based on predictions of future carbon dioxide scenarios, to determine how fast seafloors might be dissolving over the next few centuries.<<

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know why papers like this never distinguish between acidity due to dissolved CO2, carbonic acid, and other causes of acidity. Dissolved CO2 and other acids have opposite effects, when it comes to the dissolving of sea floor carbonates for instance.

If you are that interested, why don’t you dig out the actual paper.

I told you never to say that again.

I haven’t mentioned this before because it’s really too complicated for me to understand at this point.

It’s bleedin’ obvious that increases of carbon dissolved in the ocean directly result in greater deposition of carbon from the ocean in the form of calcium carbonate – both from biological sources (corals, molluscs, forams, diatoms) and abiological sources. Currently, 50% of the carbonate deposition in the ocean is biological and 50% abiological. This is independent of the amount of calcium in the ocean because calcium at 411 ppm is present in much higher concentrations than carbon in the ocean at 28 ppm (and because the retention time for carbon in the ocean is less than that for calcium in the oceans). It’s called “conservation of mass”. So the calcium from the solution of limestone and clays on land (resulting in hard water) can be taken out of the equation.

But there’s a subtlety. Dissolved carbon in the oceans exists in three different forms: as CO ₂, as CO ₃ ^2-, and as HCO ₃ ^-. There’s a chemical reaction CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^-. So it can be claimed that increasing CO ₂ in the oceans results in the solution of CO ₃ ^2- off the ocean bed, a reduction of the abiological deposition.

I’m not prepared to accept that subtlety without question for two reasons. One is that a recent study showed that the biological generation of the calcium carbonate that deposits on the ocean floor can occur both from from carbon in the form of CO ₂, which is the most efficient, and also from carbon in the form of HCO ₃ ^-.

So, putting it all together, what have we got? We have that dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans increases the biological generation of calcium carbonate on the ocean floor, and helps the growth of corals, molluscs, forams and diatoms. It helps the growth of plankton in general, and therefore all marine life.

But dissolving CO ₂ in the oceans may temporarily reduce the abiological deposition of calcium carbonate as the balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- = 2HCO ₃ ^- shifts to the right until a balance is again attained. That’s what the OP paper is about.

I called it a subtlety, and the above is not particularly subtle. The rest of the subtlety is that the left-right balance of CO ₂ + CO ₃ ^2- + H ₂ O = 2HCO ₃ ^- also depends on other factors not directly related to the level of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Particularly on the amount of organic acids pouring into the oceans from the forests (more forest = more organic acids = less abiological deposition of carbonate on the ocean floor), but also on the production of sulphurous acid H ₂ SO ₃ that used to be produced by burning biomass and fossil fuels – before low sulphur fuels were mandated and before the installation of sulphur dioxide scrubbers in industrial plants.

This makes understanding the outcome difficult.

Have a look at this paper. It’s about the relationship between carbonate deposition and climate stability, as it relates to ice ages.
http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5646/859.full

I cannot let this go by unanswered. There is nothing that you have mentioned here that the original post disagrees, in fact it is building on the research already done on this subject. All you have done is build a strawman, totally ignoring the OP, then burning it down. You do this time and time again, presumably to make you look more knowledgeable, but at the expense of those who have invested their time and considerable expertise to provide additional information that might benefit others. Personally I find your actions deplorable.