Jim Steele
Coral build reefs by producing limestone, or calcium carbonate. The great diversity of shell building mollusks, like clams and oysters, also build their shells out of calcium carbonate. So, scientists assumed that these organisms just pulled carbonate ions from the surrounding sea water and joined it with abundant calcium ions to make reefs and shells, a process referred to as “calcification”. Thus, many scientists then expressed their heart-felt concerns that more CO2 will reduce the ocean’s carbonate ions and thus stress coral reef building and mollusk shell building.
Indeed, the increasing absorption of human produced carbon dioxide by the oceans can very slightly lower pH. In other words, more CO2 increases the oceans’ concentration of H+ ions. It is also unassailable science that when CO2 enters the water, it interacts with water molecules to produce both H+ ions and bicarbonate ions. However, those H+ ions can then interact with carbonate ions and convert them to also form bicarbonate ions and reduce the pool of available carbonate ions. So, NOAA and hundreds of internet websites falsely told the world that “Ocean acidification slows the rate at which coral reefs generate calcium carbonate, thus slowing the growth of coral skeletons.”
However, climate scientists were apparently very ignorant regards the physiology of reef building and shell making. In order for charged ions to pass through an organism’s lipid membranes and enter its calcification chambers, a specialized channel or transporter is required. But for over a decade now, the search for carbonate transporters has failed to find any such transporters in any of these organisms. However, abundant bicarbonate transporters (green rectangles) have been found and deemed important for making reefs and shells.
From an evolutionary perspective, using the more abundant bi-carbonate ions is extremely logical. The higher amounts of carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere would lower ocean pH when mollusks and coral first evolved millions of years ago. That argues using scarcer carbonate ions would be very risky but using much more abundant bi-carbonate ions would supply the stability to evolve. Furthermore, all those organisms had long had the ability to absorb bicarbonate ions and transform it internally into carbonate ions for shell making and reef building by simply pumping out hydrogen ions. When CO2 enters the oceans, over 90% of it converts to bicarbonate ions whether the oceans’ pH is acidic at pH 6 or basic at pH 9. In contrast, carbonate ions virtually do not exist when ocean pH approaches pH 6. (Graphic A.)
The world can only hope that NOAA and all those alarmist websites will soon admit that improved science has revealed the error of their ways, and they will now come clean and tell the public that CO2 has not threatened reef builders and shell builders. In fact, they should report that more CO2 generates more bicarbonate ions which are the building blocks of shells and reefs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t expect any apology. This crowd is ALWAYS RIGHT.
Great, brief note!
Here is another (hopefully) risky tactic. applying equilibrium notions of inorganic aqueous solutions to an ocean teaming with life.
So what do you suggest? Jim’s Figs A and B are entirely based on equilibrium inorganic chemistry.
Oceans are always striving for chemical equilibrium..
… and are massively buffered by huge sources of carbonates.
There is also no evidence of changing pH outside normal variability.
“So what do you suggest?”
Gee, I don’t know? How about some experimental science?
From Nick???
Yes, how odd it is for Nick to finally acknowledge actual science instead of the specious drivel he normally drops.
I do note that his acknowledgement was as a backhanded self serving insult.
Life by its very nature, works against chemical equilibrium.
exactly.
transport across biological membranes against concentration gradient — non-equilibium.
No, the theory used here is equilibrium. That transport requires energy, but that doesn’t make it non-equilibrium.
Energy which living organisms provide. I’m not sure how you can be more non-equilibrium than against gradient.
CO2 was 20 times higher than now when corals and mollusks evolved.
Corals date from the Cambrian, when CO2 was 7000 ppm or more. So do mollusks, but Ediacaran rocks contain possible proto-molluscan impressions.
Cambrian coral went extinct during the Permian. Modern coral evolved during the Age of Dinosaurs.
Obviously not all descendants of Cambrian coral went extinct at the end of the Paleozoic. Rugose and tabúlate corals did, but clearly some Cnidarian lineages continued in order to evolve into modern stony corals in the mid-Triassic.
It’s not as if the phylum was reborn de novo in the Mesozoic.
And of course CO2 was higher and oceans hotter than now in the Triassic as well.
Wasn’t the CO² level during the Dino era still at 2000 ppm?
YEP
There’s a chance that stony corals evolved from rugose corals, but probably not. Both groups do however belong to the same Anthozoan class or subclass, which also includes sea anemones.
Stony corals more likely evolved from sea anemones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexacorallia
Milo,
There is still a debate regards what clades from which time that modern Scleractinian coral evolved. And clearly some ancestors that survived the Permian extinctions must have enabled the evolution of modern coral.
My only point was most palaeozoic coral went extinct by the Permian and we must be careful not to attribute their abilities to be the same as modern coral that evolved in the Mesozoic, even though modern coral likely share some genetic behaviors with their Paleozoic coral ancestors.
The Paleozoic reef-building corals, ie tabúlate and rugose corals, arose in the Ordovician and went extinct at the Permian-Triassic boundary. Thus their latter environment was less distinct from that of stony corals in the Triassic.
Only the end Permian mass extinction event carried them off. As noted, rugose corals are closely related to stonies.
In any case, Cnidaria, Anthozoa and Hexacorallia all thrived at much higher CO2 concentrations and in hotter waters than now.
But that would mean acknowledging another Life benefit of rising CO2, like enhanced photosynthesis and drought tolerance. Such heresy is impermissible. It would break Green minds.
It is a travesty they got it wrong.
They have got basically everything wrong about CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean.
The heat is hiding in the oceans. It’s a travesty they can’t find it.
As an AGW denier, and the Forrest Gump of climate science, it is you who gets everything wrong
Almost 100% of scientists recognize AGW but BeyondNasty2000 thinks he knows better from reading climate comic books. A legend in his own mind.
There goes little dickie-bot on his mindless, unable-to-think-for-himself, consensus rant.
So sad. !!
Any scientific evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2 yet..
Or are you still totally empty.
“It is a travesty they got it wrong.”
As with all climate “science”, they never got it wrong. They just lied to everyone.
“However, climate scientists were apparently very ignorant regards the physiology of reef building and shell making.”
None of this has anything to do with climate science. Putting CO2 in the air affects many things. Climate scientists study the effects on climate.
The cost of lower pH comes with the proton pump, labelled ATPase in the diagram. It consumes more energy to pump protons into a more acidic environment.
“Climate scientists study the effects on climate.”
If only that were true.
And not even that they are able for 😀
Too often non-science, data-free predictions of a future climate called CAGW … that has never existed, despite being predicted since 1979.
Data free predictions are not science
Wrong predictions are not science
Much of modern climate “science” is politics — CO2 scaremongering to create fear and empower leftist governments.
Self satisfying models and opinions are not studying anything, let alone climate.
Far too many howl at the moon over ordinary weather events that have happened before the industrial age.
What a load of rubbish.
The only thing affected by enhanced atmospheric CO2 is the abundance of nature. !!
Nature THRIVES when it has sufficient CO2.
There is no evidence the oceans are changing pH levels any more than natural variability.
Oceans ARE NOT ACIDIC
And as far as hydronium ion concentration is concerned, 10E-8 mol/L is a small number. Bicarbonate ion’s concentration in sea water is more than 10E5 greater. That swamps out any pH effect at current sea water composition.
pH is just an indicator. The reaction is between HCO₃⁻, CO₂,CO₃⁻⁻ and Ca⁺⁺
and pH levels are not changing outside normal variability.
The world’s biosphere LUVS the extra CO2.
And ocean carbonates can never be depleted… a physical impossibility
So the whole nonsense from the anti-CO2 brigade is the antithesis of science…
… as is the whole AGW scam.
why the red thumbs? red-thumb person[s].. please explain.
The atmosphere is almost certainly somewhat warmer from more CO2, but the warming is modest, mainly at night, and beneficial
The ocean pH is almost certainly changed by more dissolved CO2, but the change is much too small to measure, and also harmless.
CO2 supports almost all life on our planet. We should celebrate more CO2 in the atmosphere. That conclusion based on s science.
The CO2 Does Nothing Nutters make it difficult to celebrate the many benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere
“is almost certainly somewhat warmer from more CO2”
Evidence please !
“The ocean pH is almost certainly changed by more dissolved CO2”
Evidence please !
With all those “almost certainly”, you sound like a wonky attribution non-scientist.
A rabid AGW-cultist, who just “believes” for the sake of believing.
‘But for over a decade now, the search for carbonate transporters has failed to find any such transporters in any of these organisms. However, abundant bicarbonate transporters (green rectangles) have been found and deemed important for making reefs and shells.’
I think you missed this.
To be accurate, ‘climate scientists’ may not have had much to say about coral reef endangerment, but they are at the top of the food chain that feeds climate alarmism to other scientific disciplines from biochemistry to power generation.
“I think you missed this.”
Not at all. Jim’s diagram shows bicarbonate being transported into a more alkaline environment, where CO₃⁻⁻ and H⁺ are formed and CaCO₃ precipitated. But the cost of that is the proton pumping needed to emit the H⁺. And that is higher at lower marine pH.
I’ll repeat this Nick since you missed it
You seem to be a little desperate there Nick.
You desperately bloviate it “consumes more energy to pump protons into a more acidic environment.”
First by co-transporting with Ca+ inwards helps push H+ out. By removing the surrounding Ca+ positive charge positive H+ more easily exit. Pumping H+ out is required to bring Ca+ in.
Furthermore you totally ignore the microenvironments. When coral are photosynthesizing pH rises making it easier to pump H+ out.
Finally Recent studies have concluded “coral host cells acidify the microenvironment where the symbiotic algae reside using a proton pump, the V-type H+-ATPase (VHA), which is present in the host membrane surrounding the algae. Acidification of the algal microenvironment by VHA promotes photosynthesis,
Either come clean Nick, or produce the study that backs up your specious claims.
“By removing the surrounding Ca+ positive charge positive H+ more easily exit.”
The thermodynamic issue isn’t charge balance. It is species activity, which is proportional to log concentration. Ca⁺⁺ is present in high concentration everywhere, and log([Ca⁺⁺]) barely changes, so no change in free energy. But the concentration of H⁺ has to be increased by a large factor, and that needs a lot of energy.
“When coral are photosynthesizing pH rises making it easier to pump H+ out.”
Corals don’t have leaves. They respire, and emit CO₂, which acidifies the environment. It’s true that they usually have associated zooxanthellae, which do photosynthesize and absorb some of that CO₂. But lower ocean pH diminishes pH in each of these micro-environments.
You totally a dishonest idiot!
You are gonna argue “Corals don’t have leaves.”ROTFLMAO
“isn’t charge balance”
Are you not a real person but really an AI bot programmed to dishonestly troll?
“You totally a dishonest idiot!”
Jim “attack dog” Steele
Authors who verbally attack commenters who politely disagree with them are the TRUE idiots.
See your own comment towards bnice2000…
My Dear Richard Greene, Thanks ever so much for how you always model how not to engage in personal attacks.
Oh how I wish like you I could ignore purposeful dishonest obfuscations and simply see it as “politely disagreeing” . When I tell Stokes coral photosynthesize and raise pH making it easier for pH to move out, Nick was only trying to help me understand that “Coral don’t have leaves” How could I have ever seen that as idiocy?
I confess it is the attack dog in me. I just couldn’t see such comments as politely disagreeing, or engaging in informative scientific discussion.
I tried to show there was a charge balance issue as well. Coral use ATPase for energy to pump CA+ against the gradient into the calcifying region raising CA+ concentrations 2 to 3 times higher than sea water. Because of charge balance. transport is coupled with removing H+ ions. One of the most common transporters is a Ca2+–H+-ATPase. Nick just dismissed that to push his narrative. Disagreement or obfuscation?
Nick is being totally disingenuous.
You just don’t have the scientific background to see that.
When you comment, we can see who the true idiot is .. .. It is not Jim.
Clearly Nick you are totally clueless about coral biology but that doesn’t stop you from dishonest pontificating.
My diagram shows H+ pumped into the coelenteron (coral’s oral cavity) not out into the ocean.
Coral’s symbiotic algae need CO2 to photosynthesize and thus the H+ ions in the coelenteron are used to convert abundant bicarbonate ions into the needed CO2.
One reason for the success of modern coral is their symbiotic relationship with dinoflagellates, unicellular golden-brown algae also called Zooxanthellae in coral. Coral are abundant in nutrient poor waters. Dinoflagellates use the CO2 supplied by coral via polyps respiration or the conversion of bicarbonates and H+, and the Dinoflagellates provides organic carbon for the polyps.
Like all the other ignorant climate scientists you are clueless about coral biology and obfuscate the important facts with irrelevant “thermodynamic arguments”.
I can’t express how thoroughly disgusted I am with your obfuscation Nick!
“But lower ocean pH”
just another anti-CO2 fantasy, with zero scientific backing
Bollocks! I have propogated stony corals (+30 years) at pH as low as 7.4 just well as when i have boosted pH as high as 8.6. There are many things affecting and enhancing coral growth … different corals are impacted differently. Some of our most colourful (and thus valuable export ) come from turbid inshore waters of the GBR environment.
“Jim’s diagram shows bicarbonate being transported into a more alkaline environment,”
The oceans ARE an alkaline environment. !
There is no evidence this is changing.
Really Nick? Shell making has nothing to do with climate? Then just how do you think that the vast majority of the CO2 delivered to the earth’s atmosphere over billions of years became trapped in the white cliffs of Dover and countless other vast limestone deposits all around this planet? Just how do you think Venus’ atmosphere containing nearly all CO2 is still around after billions of years? Answer – no oceans, no shell making, all CO2 airborne and so dense that the planet is extremely hot (because of its density, not its infrared properties.) Shell making is one of the key reasons, perhaps the major one, we have the air we have today.
You still haven’t shown where climate comes in. Organisms can use energy to control CaCO₃ formation for their own purposes. But as Jim’s diag B shows, for each HCO₃⁻ that is taken in, an H⁺ is returned to the environment. Ultimately, that dissolves a CaCO₃ somewhere else.
Many limestone deposits were formed by organisms. But it is the underlying acidity (or lack of it) in Earth’s geology that makes it possible. Something ultimately has to absorb those protons they emit while doing that.
Damn Nick, You desperately insist on pushing all the refuted myths! I have lost all respect for you.
You make the bogus assertion “Ultimately, that dissolves a CaCO₃ somewhere else.”
But all living mollusks have a protective organic layer called the periostracum that prevents the shell from dissolving. When dead shells dissolve they release carbonate ions which can increase pH by combining carbonate and H+ to make bicarbonate.
Reefs are covered by living polyps that prevent dissolving.
Learn some science before you push your BS!
“You make the bogus assertion “Ultimately, that dissolves a CaCO₃ somewhere else.””
Jim, you are getting so worked up you can’t even read what you write in the same para
“When dead shells dissolve they release carbonate ions which can increase pH by combining carbonate and H+ to make bicarbonate.“
I’m actually talking , as was Denis, about the global formation and dissolution of calcium carbonate.
Poor Nick.. knows he has been caught out .. yet again.
Tries to back-pedal, but falls backwards…. splat… on his own BS.
He displays the typical attributes of alarmista ‘climate scientists’ … they know everything about anything and mostly wallow in mud.
Does climate “come in”. Perhaps I’m missing some point but it seems more like climate does not matter with shell and reef building.
Bingo! You worked it out!
“You worked it out!”
You haven’t .. you still “believe” all the anti-CO2 crud you have been brain-washed with.
Now you have to tell your AGW-cult comrades to stop making stupid comments linking climate change and coral.
But you won’t, will you.
It matters very much. I profer that climate came before coral … its an evolutionary schtik (scuze the pun).
“You still haven’t shown where climate comes in”
Nick has just admitted that “climate” and “CO2” are totally unrelated.
Poor Nick… You must have so many holes in your feet by now.
LOL … why does the GBR exist where it does and not at Antarctica?
You seem to be a little desperate there Nick. Instead of coming clean you bloviate it has “Nothing to do with Climate science”. Yet NOAA is always linking CO2 in the air to reduced calcification.
And you desperately bloviate it “consumes more energy to pump protons into a more acidic environment.”
First by co-transporting with Ca+ inwards helps push H+ out. By removing the surrounding Ca+ positive charge positive H+ more easily exit. Pumping H+ out is required to bring Ca+ in.
Furthermore you totally ignore the microenvironments. When coral are photosynthesizing pH rises making it easier to pump H+ out.
Finally Recent studies have concluded “coral host cells acidify the microenvironment where the symbiotic algae reside using a proton pump, the V-type H+-ATPase (VHA), which is present in the host membrane surrounding the algae. Acidification of the algal microenvironment by VHA promotes photosynthesis,
Either come clean Nick, or produce the study that backs up your specious claims.
“Yet NOAA is always linking CO2 in the air to reduced calcification.”
Yes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may well do that. Doesn’t make it climate science.
I have answered the other points here
ROFLMOA…. Now Nick admits NOAA has nothing to do with climate science….
So the whole AGW anti-CO2 thing is really just a total fantasy.
Well done Nick… finally realised the total scam he chooses to support !
Boring!
Yes, you are.
Stokes moves at ever increasing velocity and in diminishing radius … the outcome is inevitable.
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may well do that.
Doesn’t make it climate science.”
Thanks for stating things so aptly, Nick !! 🙂
Stokes is tripping over his own shoelaces!
Many footprints in his mouth.
The solubility product constant of CaCO3 is such that its formation is exothermic. Regardless of the pathway, energy is released from its formation.
Formation from 1M Ca⁺⁺ and 1M CO₃⁻⁻ is exothermic. Free energy of reaction is -48.1 kJ at 298 K. But the solubility product is 3.3e-9, and RT*log(3.3e-9) is 48.1. IOW, formation by equilibrium precipitation at solubility product concentrations is zero free energy.
The theory says that CO2 is being driven into the oceans. Therefore, according to Le Chatelier’s principle, the reaction equilibrium is driven to the exothermic side.
True but irrelevant. Any reaction at equilibrium has a Delta G of zero.
The proposition I was answering was
“Regardless of the pathway, energy is released from its formation.”
In fact, if the concentrations are below solubility product, the opposite is true.
Establishment climate “scientists” fraudulently portray CO2 as a harmful pollutant damaging life. The opposite is an empirical fact.
Your Nick picking ignores that the geologic average PH of the oceans which all species evolved and thrived through is 7.8. Significantly less alkaline than the current 8.1.
Using the term “acidic” for anything above a PH of 7 is a blatant misrepresentation.
“blatant misrepresentation.”
You have Nick pinned… to a “t”
It is what he does… all his posts represent…
True, but unhelpful. What’s your point, Nick?
Yes, the mitochondria pump protons across their membranes and use the reverse process to generate ATP. So what? There are many organelles withing the cell that are maintained at different pH.
The bulk of the cell has a lower pH than the ocean, so it can easily be argued that ocean “acidification” would be net beneficial as they have to spend less energy maintaining the more acidic internal pH
Cells don’t just have to wait for crystallisation of Aragonite to happen, whether the solution is supersaturated or not (as in fresh water environments). They can enclose pockets, forming a micro environment under the control of the cell, to cause crystallisation. It is an active process, not passive as doomsters like to imagine.
Sure, changes may benefit some species more than others. But the trope that all the corals and sea shells are going to dissolve in an acid apocalypse is probably one of the worst that they are feeding to the uninformed.
“True, but unhelpful. What’s your point, Nick?”
Well, that isa change from being called an idiot and a liar. The point is that Jim’s claim that I
‘obfuscate the important facts with irrelevant “thermodynamic arguments”’ is wrong. Thermodynamics is never irrelevant. And here, if there is an amount of free energy to be made up to precipitate CaCO₃ when the components in the ocean are short of the solubility product, then that amount of energy has to be found by the calcifying organism. You can break it into pathways and local environments, but it still has to be found. In Jim’s formulation, the energy shows up as what is required to run the proton pump.
Still trying to make pointless irrelevant points, pertaining to absolutely nothing.
Haven’t you heard the thing about..
… when in a deep hole.. stop digging !!
All you have managed to say is that…
… you have nothing to show that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any effect on coral growth.
The why is easy and simple. Because they wanted to be duped. And saying they were duped is a stretch.
There’s a lot more money in “duped” as opposed to “honest”.
In 2008 there was this paper about coccoliths which is analogous
The ocean acidification alarmists made two fundamental scientific mistakes.
And attempts to prove otherwise turned out to be examples of academic misconduct. Fabricius’ Milne Bay corals and PMEL’s Whiskey Creek Oyster Hatchery are two specific examples covered in essay ‘Shell Games’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
errr . . . three fundamental mistakes:
3. They ignored the fact that changing an ocean pH from 8.2 down to 7.8 or so is not “acidification” but instead is a reduction in alkalinity.
Chemistry 101.
I was going to give the alarmists the benefit of the doubt (though I don’t know why, we never receive same) and show that in this instance, “acidification” could be correct in the sense of moving toward more acidic, even if it remains in the range of alkalines. Meriam-Webster gives me no support. When I tried to search for “acidification” it rerouted me to “acidify”, and merely noted in a footnote that words made from “acidify” include “acidification”, and that it is a noun, that’s all!!! The definition given to me reads as follows:
acidifyverbacid·i·fy ə-ˈsi-də-ˌfī a-
Note that it doesn’t provide the comparative usage, whereby something that is made less basic is “acidified” because it moved toward the acid end of the spectrum even though it remains within the range of alkaline, it has not been “acidified” until it moves into the range of acids.
So, once again and to no-one’s surprise, the alarmists are redefining words, mostly to make the scariest sounding story, but also to control everyone else.
Seems to me the term acidification was in use long before the label “climate science”.
Actually, it is best for us to say that any slight reduction in pH makes the ocean LESS CAUSTIC.
Less caustic? . . . would that be the same as reduced alkalinity?
Yes..
But it sounds much better.
And surely, in “climate science”… it is the sound of the words that matters 😉
Hence the AGW-cultist use of the word “acidification”.
“caustic” is a scary word…. so “less Caustic” is a much better come-back wording, because it implies the oceans were more caustic (scary-word) before.
Also ignore that a lot of enhance CO2 gets used by sea plants..
Just like on the land.. more available CO2 = more growth.
Not to suggest a controversy but, strictly speaking, are Phytoplankton really plants?
You are correct Andy. Phytoplankton (mosty diatoms, coccolithophpres and dinoflagellates) are unicelluar photosynthesizers not considered to be plants.
Plenty of other sea plants though… and they all LUV CO2
Macro algae love CO2. Maybe why they are so prolific in colder water?
Fun factoid. In Florida Bay (between the Keys and the mainland) the abundant thallassia sea grass consumes so much CO2 that in summer afternoons the pH rises above 9. Covered also in essay Shell Games.
Then back down again overnight. 🙂
Not surprising that climate scientists are ignorant of shell making in the ocean. They are well known for being ignorant of climate processes such as CO2 saturation, Co2 inability to heat the ocean and so many others.
“They are well known for being ignorant…”
You could have stopped your sentence there….
—-
“They are well known for being ignorant of climate…”
…. or stopped your sentence there.
Easily miss a lot, but just ran across this acknowledging funding Gulf of Mexico offshore reef fish research. (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement)
https://www.bsee.gov/ Founded in 2011 with a Renewable Energy Program they seem focused on offshore matters. Lots of gas out there but none mentioned in research.
.
“These cruises were funded jointly by NOAA, ONMS [Office of National Marine Sanctuaries], the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.” Story tip?
Nice . . . but I think not “duped” . . . instead just forced to make their own scientific judgements subservient to the sources of employment $ and career advancement.
It’s an age-old story.
From cyanobacteria to homo sapiens
Early organisms lived in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen and full of carbon dioxide, similar to today’s Venus and Mars.
Then something unusual happened: A microscopic organism called cyanobacteria emerged and began using sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to produce food through a process called photosynthesis. A byproduct of photosynthesis is oxygen. Estimates of when this happened range from 3.0 billion to 2.8 billion to 2.7 billion to 2.5 billion years ago.
Initially, the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria was sequestered in minerals and seawater. However, between 2.4 and 2.5 billion years ago, cyanobacteria produced enough oxygen to store in the Earth’s atmosphere. This period, when oxygen levels in the atmosphere began to increase significantly, is known as the Great Oxidation Event.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/how-did-earth-get-its-oxygen
That’s not all, thanks to CO2 we have the current level of oxygen in the atmosphere and oxygen in the stratosphere and ozone protect us from deadly radiation.
The efficiency of oxygen production by phytoplankton is so high that oxygen levels in the atmosphere are stable, and only strong cooling can change this.
Around 350 million years ago, Earth’s oxygen levels hit 20%, which is roughly the percentage they are at today. Oxygen concentrations continued to rise to 35%, before a cooling climate and the large-scale death of many plants sent concentrations plummeting to 12%. Levels continued to fluctuate before stabilizing at today’s 21%.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
And as the percentage of Oxygen goes above 21% fires an Oxygenation increases. With Oxygen below 16% we would not be here writing this. Flames, burning and oxygenation trap Oxygen into __oxides, e.g. CO2, Rust, Bauxite, etc. Your Shiny, new, Aluminum door turns dull as it becomes oxidized. and as or if the O2 level goes below 16% fires decrease, and the oxidation of material also decreases, thus limiting the increase of CO2.The More CO2 in the atmosphere the faster the trees grow capturing the CO2 into the tree. if those trees burn and/or decaying trap the CO2 in them to be buried for hundreds, thousands, of years. at some point an Equilibrium is achieved – which is where we are now — and the Envirowakos are destroying that Equilibrium.
In general, marine planktonic diatoms are associated with nutrient-rich waters with high biomass that are commonly found in coastal waters, in upwelling areas, or during seasonal blooms in the open oceans, such as the North Atlantic spring bloom (3, 66, 67). Although our dataset contains only a few coastal sampling sites, the results reported here confirm that diatoms constitute a major component of phytoplankton and are most common in regions of high productivity (upwelling zones) and high latitudes (the Southern Ocean). However, we further show that in open ocean oligotrophic areas diatom diversity is comparable to coastal areas. At these sites, although the abundance of diatoms is low (likely because their growth is limited most of the time), they are able to survive (perhaps because of mechanisms such as dormancy, symbiosis with N-fixers, buoyancy regulation, etc.) and, for some of them, to be ready to take advantage of favorable ecological conditions as and when they arise. This reservoir of diversity is likely an essential asset ensuring an overall plasticity of response of the whole diatom community to environmental variability. The wide set of combinations of evenness and occupancy also suggests that the common view of diatoms as opportunists (i.e., r-strategists) (50–52) has to be reconsidered because they seem capable of occupying a wide range of niches and to display a diversity structure (with rare sequences being more numerous than abundant sequences) that is more akin to a gleaner (K) strategy (52). As a case in point, despite the well-known behavior of Chaetoceros as a local opportunist (50, 52), the impressive abundance and diversity shown here indicate that the various species do not outcompete each other. In our opinion, as a group the diatoms are therefore likely to display a continuous spectrum of different growth strategies.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509523113
Yes, they would readily apologise – if it was about science and facts, – it’s not!
Yep https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09983
Plants grab CO2 and gobble it up as fast as it’s produced and if there’s a little left over the ocean sink snatches it and converts it to harmless bicarbonate at the ocean bottom; we don’t have a chance. The score: Mother Nature 1, People 0.
Source 1: We are using less than 1% of the (CO2/bicarbonate) estimated capacity (Dr. Harde, German Physicist, 2018)
Source 2: Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 leads to decreased pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation state with respect to CaCO3 minerals, causing increased dissolution of these minerals at the deep seafloor. This additional dissolution will figure prominently in the neutralization of man-made CO2. (Olivier Sulpis et al, Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2, 2018).
Because they wanted too. Fame fortune & prestige
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That’s funny (-:
In wouldn’t hold my breath, these agencies are more populated with political activists than actual serious scientists. Their goal is the fundamental transformation of the United States, and from the prospective of those who believe in the Constitution and individual liberty that transformation would be disastrous. They have been waging a campaign of fear for decades, a campaign that will end only after their leadership is defeated at the poles.
Very nice Jim.
So just add this to the rubbish heap of Climate Alarmist Catastrophes that not only didn’t happen but could never happen, because they are just flat wrong! In other words, a day ending in “y”.
“The world can only hope that NOAA and all those alarmist websites will soon admit that improved science has revealed the error of their ways”
Hope springs eternal but liars and fraudsters seldom change their ways. Exposing their lies as you have done is how sanity can be reclaimed by rational people.
It is also known that calcifiers can manipulate the pH at the shell growth-face, with the expenditure of energy. Different calcifiers have different ranges of pH tolerance centered around the optimal pH for them, which probably reflects the dominant pH when they first evolved. After having expended energy to grow, they then protect their investment with chitin and/or mucous membranes. Once the organism dies and starts to sink, no new mucous or chitin is produced and the old mucous and chitin are destroyed by bacteria. The shells observed at depth that show corrosion is what happens to dead organisms, not living organisms.
The minor little fact is that corals and mollusks emerged in an era when CO2 was very much higher than present, so it is highly unlikely a minor increase in CO2 from a low level will have any adverse effects.
“The world can only hope that NOAA and all those alarmist websites will soon admit that improved science has revealed the error of their ways”.
as if.
As Pielkie updated the other day, ever since it was made clear that RCP8.5 is nonsense, there have been 28,000 “climate” papers based on it, an average of 25 per day being published, and figures it will take a few more years until fraud artists (climate scientists) stop using that ridiculous scenario, which would mean another 28,000 fraud papers.
Because it’s not about science, it’s about decision based evidence making to support the narrative.
“As Pielkie updated the other day, ever since it was made clear that RCP8.5 is nonsense, there have been 28,000 “climate” papers based on it”
Isn’t that pathetic!
Climate alarmists use a completely unrealistic computer model RCP8.5 because their aim is not good science, but is to scare people into submission to government control and RCP8.5 makes that possible for them
28,000! All the “scientists” got paid nicely, I imagine. Alarmist Climate Science is Big Business, even when science fiction is included.
They do it because they have to “publish or perish,” and they can’t get results that get attention from the publishers unless they use the extreme scenario. Therefore, the whole system is gamed to prevaricate, rather than search for the Truth.
Plainly they suffer from mind bleach which produces lots of carbonate. Do they stick their heads in the toilet in search of it?
I’ve been saying this for years, so I’m glad others are catching on. This has been known for quite some time in the reefkeeping community both experimentally (see Dana Riddle’s work on carbonic anhydrase) as well as anecdotally (how else could reefkeepers maintain captive reefs with baking soda, i.e., sodium bicarbonate if there was no internal pathway to carbonate within coral tissues).
We have also learned to manipulate coral growth and colouration through other techniques with bacteria beyond just bicarb. Though best bang for buck is through keeping it simple.:-)
With all due respect, I don’t even know what your comment is supposed to mean. While we can manipulate coral growth and coloration with lighting, trace elements, and proper nutrition, none of that has anything to do with bacteria. Maybe I’m just old school and behind the times…
Old school too, started with metal halide 5000k hydrponic grow lamps, a skimmer that was no better than blowing with a straw, live rock and a 8″ coral sand from the GBR. Followed the likes of Calfo, Borneman, Riddle, Sanjay Joshi, amonst others. Etc, etc.
Then we started to understand carbon dosing to reduce nutrients … vinegar boosted bacteria growth, bacteria consumed nutrient and the big beckett skimmer took out the decaying bacteria following limited nutrient. Result was an ultra low nutrient environment with super colourful sticks. No need to mess with manipulating effloresence with fancy LEDs. All very low tech.
Wow – beautiful!