Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#51
Old 06-25-2018, 04:25 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
There is still not much of a clue from you of what was incorrect. Again, it looked just to about what a nitpick can be.
Post 31.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Incidentally
Also addressed in post 31. You even quoted the sentence where I mention it!
#52
Old 06-25-2018, 05:45 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,622
Same back to you, that is not showing that it was incorrect, I showed that: it was not omitted in the cite, I showed that CO2 is an inert gas except in some conditions for the long carbon cycle; and in reality, even when taken into account, the weathering of the rocks will not be enough to save our bacon, even if you take it.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-25-2018 at 05:48 PM.
#53
Old 06-25-2018, 06:36 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I showed that: it was not omitted in the cite
What is "it"? I never wrote about anything being omitted.

Last edited by Ruken; 06-25-2018 at 06:36 PM.
#54
Old 06-25-2018, 06:56 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
What is "it"? I never wrote about anything being omitted.
So, we are back again about what was incorrect. Give it up, it is you the one that is insisting that it was incorrect when in reality weathering of the rocks was not the focus of the article and in any case they did talk about the carbon cycle and also pointed the reader to what weathering can do for capturing CO2.

Not enough, and recent studies point that it could be a neutral factor if not a positive one. (Here we should remember that "positive" in this issue is not a good thing, it means an increase in a factor that leads to more warming in the future).
#55
Old 06-25-2018, 08:03 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Let's try this again. The quote from the article:
Quote:
CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).
We'll do this once sentence at a time:
Quote:
CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean.
"CO2...is only removed [from the atmosphere] by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean."
This is not true, because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by other mechanisms.

And the next sentence:
Quote:
Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).
Yes, the net flux is much smaller than the flux in either direction, but biological uptake is not carbon neutral. Plenty of it gets buried and stays buried. They acknowledge that some carbon that undergoes biological uptake becomes fossil fuels, but not all buried carbon becomes fossil fuels. Shale, limestone, etc. show that carbon uptake is not carbon neutral.
#56
Old 06-25-2018, 08:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Let's try this again. The quote from the article:
We'll do this once sentence at a time:
"CO2...is only removed [from the atmosphere] by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean."
This is not true, because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by other mechanisms.
I think you are missing, again and again, that I already told you that it was not mention in the article, but that the article linked to the full explanation that included weathering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And the next sentence: Yes, the net flux is much smaller than the flux in either direction, but biological uptake is not carbon neutral. Plenty of it gets buried and stays buried. They acknowledge that some carbon that undergoes biological uptake becomes fossil fuels, but not all buried carbon becomes fossil fuels. Shale, limestone, etc. show that carbon uptake is not carbon neutral.
And that shows that you are ignoring now what was reported more recently, and yes, not mentioned in the article because not all science articles have to report about all and the kitchen sink.

What is important to notice is that what you see as inaccurate is just really an article missing an item that was not seen as important for the subject at hand, that subject of course was the time-line for the "final" amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere will stay, and the most likely answer is still hundreds of years. And that is because the calculation reported does take weathering of rocks into account.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Quote:
Chemistry regulates this dance between ocean, land, and atmosphere. If carbon dioxide rises in the atmosphere because of an increase in volcanic activity, for example, temperatures rise, leading to more rain, which dissolves more rock, creating more ions that will eventually deposit more carbon on the ocean floor. It takes a few hundred thousand years to rebalance the slow carbon cycle through chemical weathering.
So, I can see why that kitchen sink sink was not mentioned directly in that article. So, what we are more likely to see, in human timeline terms, is what we can get from the fast carbon cycle.

Quote:
However, the slow carbon cycle also contains a slightly faster component: the ocean. At the surface, where air meets water, carbon dioxide gas dissolves in and ventilates out of the ocean in a steady exchange with the atmosphere. Once in the ocean, carbon dioxide gas reacts with water molecules to release hydrogen, making the ocean more acidic. The hydrogen reacts with carbonate from rock weathering to produce bicarbonate ions.

Before the industrial age, the ocean vented carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in balance with the carbon the ocean received during rock weathering. However, since carbon concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, the ocean now takes more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. Over millennia, the ocean will absorb up to 85 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, but the process is slow because it is tied to the movement of water from the oceanís surface to its depths.

In the meantime, winds, currents, and temperature control the rate at which the ocean takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. (See The Oceanís Carbon Balance on the Earth Observatory.) It is likely that changes in ocean temperatures and currents helped remove carbon from and then restore carbon to the atmosphere over the few thousand years in which the ice ages began and ended.
It is important to notice here that while the issue will remain with us for that long the point remains: we need to stop treating the atmosphere as a sewer to avoid worse scenarios that are bound to last longer.
#57
Old 06-25-2018, 09:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I'm willing to bet that there are very many feedbacks on many different timescales, both positive and negative, and that we don't have a good handle on many of them, or even know they exist. We are talking about interactions between many biologcal and non-biological complex systems.
That's a bit misleading. The estimation of equilibrium climate sensitivity is essentially the study of feedbacks, and we do have a fairly good handle on all the major ones and a fairly confident estimate of climate sensitivity within admittedly a broad range. It would be very surprising indeed if there were major feedbacks that we didn't know about in view of the extensive paleoclimate studies that have been done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
A complex system has to be dominated by negative feedbacks or it wouod be unstable. The question is whether the feedbacks will happen in time to do us any good. If a feedback oscillates around a period of 500 years, for our purposes it really does not change anything.
That's not necessarily true, and indeed climate feedbacks are predominantly positive and over the long term would become even more strongly positive if we lose most of the polar ice cover. That would be a far more likely scenario than some mysterious negative feedback if we continue on the present trajectory, and it's been estimated that this "slow feedback" would more than double climate sensitivity.

You're technically correct about the need for negative feedbacks to dominate for the system to be stable, but the climate system has an intrinsic negative feedback, namely the fact that the earth's outgoing IR blackbody radiation increases with temperature. Water vapor, for example, is a powerful positive feedback that is a fairly direct function of temperature in the troposphere, and one might wonder why it doesn't create runaway climate change (more WV = higher temperature = more WV in an endless cycle). It's because, fortunately, the radiative flux to space for each degree of temperature rise is approximately twice as much as the flux reduction due to water vapor, so rising temperature drives water vapor feedback in a stable fashion. The point I want to make is that it's a mistake to think that there are negative feedbacks lurking in the system that are going to save us. If anything, positive feedbacks may become stronger.
#58
Old 06-25-2018, 09:44 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I think you are missing, again and again, that I already told you that it was not mention in the article, but that the article linked to the full explanation that included weathering.


And that shows that you are ignoring now what was reported more recently, and yes, not mentioned in the article because not all science articles have to report about all and the kitchen sink.
Do you think those sentences I quoted are correct? Yes or no?

Here they are again:
Quote:
CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Last edited by Ruken; 06-25-2018 at 09:45 PM.
#59
Old 06-25-2018, 11:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Do you think those sentences I quoted are correct? Yes or no?

Here they are again:
Again, based on what they clarified in the links and cites, yes.
#60
Old 06-26-2018, 02:12 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Calcium carbonate is from the shells of animals ... who eat plants ... who in turn reduce carbon ...
You think molluscs, algae, corals, etc. secrete their calcareous bits from the food they eat? As Ruken's link showed (but am repeating here for those who don't read links) they secrete shells from the dissolved CO2 in the water (which, through purely chemical, not biological, means, is in the form of bicarbonate ions)

Also, by far the largest fraction of carbonate comes from plants, not animals.

Last edited by MrDibble; 06-26-2018 at 02:16 AM.
#61
Old 06-26-2018, 05:51 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Thanks, MrDibble. I should have explained rather than just dropping a link.
I'll add that organisms can use respired CO2 to influence the local concentration and pH. So there's some hint of truth there even if he's mostly wrong.
#62
Old 06-26-2018, 07:38 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You think molluscs, algae, corals, etc. secrete their calcareous bits from the food they eat? As Ruken's link showed (but am repeating here for those who don't read links) they secrete shells from the dissolved CO2 in the water (which, through purely chemical, not biological, means, is in the form of bicarbonate ions)

Also, by far the largest fraction of carbonate comes from plants, not animals.
Emphasis mine

Could you please explain this bolded statement a bit better ... are you suggesting there's a sharp bright line between chemistry and biology? ... or are you suggesting not one single ATP molecule is converted back into ADP during this process? ...

Yeah ... arguing with you about geology is useless ... so questions about geology instead:

1] How long does it take to form a one meter thick layer of limestone?

2] What causes voids to form within the limestone matrix?

3] How does mercury get included in this matrix, or is this not as common as environmentalists claim?
#63
Old 06-26-2018, 08:03 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).
Essentially correct in this context ... rocks combining with CO2 is not an effective sink over 100 year time intervals ...

I would nitpick the last bit though ... through a tree's life, it will absorb CO2; upon her death, for the most part she's consumed by other organisms who in turn hold the carbon ... if we're concerned about the current CO2 overload in the atmosphere, reforestation would be one way to bring the balance back if and only if we stop emitting CO2 as specified in the OP ... we have to remember that every acre of land suitable for agriculture is currently under intense agriculture, much of this land was originally forestland (c.f. Indiana or southeast China) ...
#64
Old 06-26-2018, 08:32 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Emphasis mine

Could you please explain this bolded statement a bit better ... are you suggesting there's a sharp bright line between chemistry and biology? ... or are you suggesting not one single ATP molecule is converted back into ADP during this process? ...
Dissolved, inorganic carbon precipitates based on the local concentration of relevant species. Same as if you mixed them yourself. There is some energy expended in prepping the beaker; they have to concentrate and move the calcium and make some carbonic anhydrase, etc. I couldn't tell you how much.
#65
Old 06-26-2018, 08:37 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Emphasis mine

Could you please explain this bolded statement a bit better ... are you suggesting there's a sharp bright line between chemistry and biology?
No - biology is just chemistry in fancy lipid sacs - but I am suggesting there's a difference between a process that's a pure solution reaction, and one that requires catalysis by some biological entity.
Quote:
... or are you suggesting not one single ATP molecule is converted back into ADP during this process?
In atmospheric CO2 dissolving in water? Are you being serious here? No ATP is involved, no. Not directly. Of course much of the CO2
that dissolves comes from biological sources, but the dissolution is unmediated, AFAIK.
Quote:

questions about geology instead:

1] How long does it take to form a one meter thick layer of limestone?
How long is a piece of string?
What kind of limestone? What depositional environment? What time period in Earth's history?

10 million years, say, is a very good rate for a meter of chalk, but pretty crappy for a travertine.

Quote:
2] What causes voids to form within the limestone matrix?
Various things, but often dissolution
Quote:
3] How does mercury get included in this matrix, or is this not as common as environmentalists claim?
I don't know what environmentalists claim about mercury in limestone, but most mercury is either volcanic or hydrothermal in origin, so...hot fluids passing through the rock. Or later intrusion of dissolved mercury with groundwater.

Now, what the hell is the point of those questions, which are completely unrelated to greenhouse gases?
#66
Old 06-27-2018, 07:40 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,365
Thank you for these answers ... follow-up on #2, what are those crystals that form inside the voids? ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
[snip] .... Now, what the hell is the point of those questions, which are completely unrelated to greenhouse gases?
Just establishing that limestone formation isn't an effective sink for man's carbon pollution as some here are suggesting ...
#67
Old 06-27-2018, 08:07 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Thank you for these answers ... follow-up on #2, what are those crystals that form inside the voids? ...



Just establishing that limestone formation isn't an effective sink for man's carbon pollution as some here are suggesting ...
Please show where anyone in this thread has written that limestone formation is an effective sink for man's carbon pollution.
#68
Old 06-27-2018, 08:13 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
The existence of rocks comprising carbon derived from biological uptake of carbon dioxide is proof that the claim that "biological uptake is carbon neutral" is false. That is all. Biological uptake is not carbon neutral. Net flux is low compared to flux in either direction, but it is not zero.

Last edited by Ruken; 06-27-2018 at 08:13 AM.
#69
Old 06-27-2018, 08:18 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,212
Net flux is also low compared to the amount we're digging up and burning.
#70
Old 06-27-2018, 12:18 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Thank you for these answers ... follow-up on #2, what are those crystals that form inside the voids? ...
Too many to list here, but quartz and calcite are the most common infill minerals.
Quote:
Just establishing that limestone formation isn't an effective sink for man's carbon pollution as some here are suggesting ...
No-one suggested this at all. Limestone was brought up in response to the idea that biological uptake is carbon neutral - which it is not. Or we wouldn't still have biogenic limestones that are billions of years old.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: definition of guero overstock watches fake licketty split police hubcaps best koontz book humor emotion hitler first name bridge column removing jacket round ears lithium forums truck bed post odonnells irish cream vietnam vet caps sardonic stone the butterfly effect alternate endings why is soy sauce black george foreman grill vs panini press driving a car without oil what is base 1 paint drawing to an inside straight can electric heaters produce carbon monoxide how to detect underground electrical wires do weed stems give you headaches what colors do bishops wear