The Ocean Fertilization Plan & Its Potential Consequences | GEO GIRL

It’s meaningful because it’s an example of MANY studies that show when we actually experiment we find MANY organisms survive and thrive in acidic conditions we one believed they couldn’t survive in.

It’s an example of MANY species we now know have coping mechanisms to deal with more acidic conditions.

Just like terrestrial life has mechanisms to survive and thrive with higher atmospheric CO2, sea life does as well.

The point is you guys have been convinced (again) of something that isn’t necessarily true. Here’s what the EPA says about the issue.

Essentially the EPA excludes all studies showing survivability and thriving of actually studied species and says we still don’t KNOW how ecosystems will be impacted. But you guys think you know better than actual climate scientists….

https://www.nature.com/articles/520134b

It’s not “one study”. As I told you before I can’t post them all. I can point out the narrative you are being sold is not based on evidence.

We once thought plants would suffer from increased CO2 and warming. Turns out they have mechanisms that allow them to be more water use efficient, etc. to maintain or increase productivity with changing CO2 and temp. We are learning sea life has ability to adapt as well when we actually study the actual organisms instead of just saying “acid dissolves carbonate so all sea life will die”.

 

We now know that life is far more hardy and diverse than ever imagined just a century ago.

We have found microorganisms and even more advanced lives living in highly acific environments, temperatures below 0C, highly alkili environments, even in boiling water and combinations of two or more at the same time.

Extremophiles were once thought to be just curiosities. But over the decades, there is hardly a location on the planet where they do not only find life had been there before, it thrives in areas that humans and most other life forms would die almost instantly. And the fact that we are most likely descended from several strains of them, it shows just how tough life actually is, and how it can adapt to almost any environment.

I saw that first hand when I worked for US Borax. When I worked at the mine, the cockroaches out there were almost insanely big, and nothing could kill them short of chemical sprays or chanclas. That is because in over a century of living in an environment that literally everything was covered in one of the most commonly used roach killers (boric acid), they had evolved an immunity to the stuff. An not just roaches, the ants there were the same way.

And if life had ever evolved on Mars I would not only not be surprised, I would expect that somewhere underground it still not only lives but thrives.

 

It's the ecosystem that is important.

The resistance of one species to acidification doesn't guarantee that that specific species survives, as it was mentioned in your cite that the food source for blue crab is at direct risk due to acidification. Plus, those species depend on other food sources that also may be at risk.

You can't support your argument with individual species being resistant to one threat, as those species have dependencies that may also be threatened.

 

This thread is about marine production.

As noted in post #7, marine capture of food for humans has declined since the 1990's.

Scientists point out that this is due to acidification and warming.

There certainly are extremophiles, but I don't know what your point is. Wild caught food fish depend on a food chain that can be interrupted.

 

That’s interesting about the mine roaches. I needed braze a steel hydraulic line the other day and didn’t have any flux. Haven’t brazed anything for 20 years or more. Someone at the local understocked hardware store told me straight borax is a substitute but not a great one. Hmmm. Learned something about borax. The local service station sold me a fluxed rod they had for their own use so didn’t have yo try the borax. Good to know though. We use quite a bit of borax as my wife makes her own laundry detergent so it’s something we always have.

Yes, organisms have amazing adaptability. It’s funny to hear folks talk about it taking millions of years. When I got out of college my industry was just getting into the genetic engineering revolution. Glyphosate resistant soybeans was where it all started. Then came engined glyphosate resistant corn. Several traits of genetically engineered corn that produce insecticide to combat insect pests, mostly based on genes from Bacillus bacteria. Now there are many “traits” in crop plants to confer herbicide resistance or produce internal insecticides.

Guess what? Even when we do all we can to prevent weeds and insects from adapting to these pesticides we can’t stop them from adapting. In 30 years almost all broadleaf weeds have adapted to glyphosate. When we tried dicamba resistant traits in soybeans it only took about 3 years for broadleaf weeds to adapt to tolerate dicamba. And that was with us applying all the resistance mitigations we learned about from glyphosate resistance.

Same with the insects. In a few years they adapt and we have to come up with a new trait. Actually combinations of traits as that is the best way to combat development of resistance.

And your roach example is perfect as well. Living organisms adapt and it doesn’t take millions of years. Perhaps in some cases, but certainly not in others.

An observation of mine is that people generally have no understanding of the natural world because they are not a part of it. They have climate controlled living, working, and traveling spaces. They may have an indoor cat as a reference point for animal life. They might kill a spider or spray a wasp nest. They might have a tomato plant in a pot on the patio.

But they have no concept of the totality of nature. When I tell them cold kills many times more humans than heat they have no realistic point of reference. Only the endless propaganda on heat from media. I understand it at a basic level because I spend almost my whole life concerned with temperature and climate in general. If I make a mistake and the temp is 102°F I may be uncomfortable and thirsty for a few hours until someone finds me. If I make the same mistake at -10°F I’m likely dead before help arrives. I have to know that and take it into consideration when making daily decisions. I have to understand the biology and physics behind WHY warmer temps save lives.

Same with adaptability of organisms. They haven’t seen it. Have no practical experience with it. All they know is what the TV or Google tells them. It’s easy to fool them because they have no point of reference in reality. All they know is what others want them to know.

It’s sad people are so disconnected from nature.

 

What argument? I’ve simply pointed out the evidence doesn’t support your argument. Stop with the “one species” thing. There are many we know of and we just started looking.

Yes ecosystems are the important part. And the EPA even acknowledges we don’t KNOW. Yet you all act like you do. Even to the point of rejecting evidence that conflicts with your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

I pointed it out in your own science cites. I didn't have to cite anything else.

And, I pointed it out with the decline in food harvest from the world's oceans.

Yes, the EPA will certainly say we don't know everything. But, you can't turn that into a suggestion that we know nothing.

 

You are rejecting what we are learning. You have made up your mind based on a few lab experiments and nothing will change your mind.

I’m OK with that. I’m willing to accept all evidence and learn.

 

I have referred to zero lab experiments.

In post 7 I noted that ocean catch has declined.

In the post on blue crabs I pointed out that the scientist noted that the prey for blue crab is susceptible to acidification, and thus may impact blue crab survivability.

This isn't me "making up my mind". It's me listening to scientists, including those you cited.

 

The EPA source I quoted said the idea organisms will suffer is based on lab experiments and that we don’t know how things will play out in reality.

I’ve posted about this before on PF, but the study from 2019 you and the authors of the study I posted on increased primary productivity from tropical cyclones are referring to is flawed because the data is from satellite ocean color monitoring.


Since phytoplankton nearer equator contain less chlorophyll than phytoplankton nearer the poles, actual primary productivity is underestimated in those studies.

Here is the evidence. This study is also from 2019.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015498

This is the study referenced by the authors of the study on tropical cyclone effects. It uses the older algorithms that underestimate phytoplankton concentrations.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4667/pdf

Here is a study that rolls it all together from 2021. Basically it’s saying because of uncertainties like inaccurate algorithms above, uncertainty about primary productivity is increasing. We just don’t know! Well, you think you do. But scientists from these studies to the EPA don’t know. Perhaps you should publish your work and help them out.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.738224/full

 

I knew that because of my voracious reading, and in some book about ancient metallurgy it talked about how up until about a hundred years ago, borax was as valuable as gold. Prior to the discovery of almost endless deposits of it in California, it was the "Rare Earth Element" most nations wanted. Primarily for it's ability to work as flux for most metals, but specifically gold.

Kind of like aluminum in the same time period. Once incredibly expensive as it was almost never found in nature in a metal form, and there was really no substitute.

It takes a lot longer for a species to evolve into a completely different species. But adapting to something can happen amazingly fast. Especially in short lived species where multiple generations can occur in a single year. Each new generation is a roll of the dice for adaptation, and the best ones survive.

That is why I often laugh at the anti-science types. A great many seem to actually believe there is no more evolution, and every species that is on the planet today will continue into the future just as it is now.

And it did not take long for roaches to adapt to the presence of borax. And the big mine outside of Boron is only a little over 100 years old. It was a shaft mine from around 1920 until 1957, when it was then converted to an open pit mine. So in reality, the almost constant exposure to borax had only been going on for about 50 years when I worked there. And I know they had been like that since the 1970s, because my father-in-law was a blaster and electrician there at that time period and they were already a thing by then.

And that is pretty accurate. Oh, they will drive to Drowning Man or to protest some project in the Dakotas, but actually spending time in nature? For enjoyment? An absolutely alien concept to them. And I saw a hell of a lot of them when I lived near Baghdad by the Bay. Driving some SUV or luxury car with a half dozen Greenpeace and other similar bumper stickers on the back. Knowing that the closest they ever get to nature is maybe driving along 101 to visit some wineries.

I actually had to take a drive up to Salem last weekend, and as usual there were deer everywhere. And I actually had somebody come up to me in a rest area, amazed that there were deer there. And I just had to shake my head, as the things are freaking everywhere. But I guess to people that have lived all their lives inside of a big city, actually seeing real wildlife is almost unheard of.

We even had a guy from in my Army IT class in Sacramento that was from New York. And as we were waiting for morning formation, he was amazed at the small pack of what he thought were 6 dogs a hundred yards away. And he could not believe me when I told him those were not dogs, those were coyotes. That is one wild animal that is found at the edges of almost every major California city.

And it is not all that hard to resolve that, if they wanted to. You can get a basic camping kit together for only around $100. And I am sure that most people live within a couple of hours of a National Forest that will have various levels of camping. From fully improved campgrounds with all services, to just walking a mile or so into the brush and camping wherever you want.

https://www.recreation.gov/search?inventory_type=camping

I just checked one my family and I regularly used on the Payette River in Idaho. Is still there, run by the Forest Service. And it costs a whopping $10 a night for no services. And another one close by never had utilities when we stayed there, but it now offers electricity for $18 a night. To be honest, we might use one of the more full service ones back then maybe once a week. So we could dump the tanks, fill the water, and give the batteries a full charge.

 

Here is another study I’ve posted before that goes into the less chlorophyll in equatorial waters issue and actually sampled water to find out actual concentration.

They used actual concentration in their model snd found by 2100 primary productivity will increase in equatorial waters in contrast to the assumptions using chlorophyll color from satellite data.

It also includes recycling of nutrients from the smallest organisms that other models don’t account for.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200127134823.htm

Again, I’m just supplying you with information the other folks supplying you with information won’t show you. You are welcome to reject it based on your preconceived bias. Or you can present evidence the study is incorrect. I think we both know what you will choose.

 

So I had a few extra minutes this morning and read through your links.

I was not surprised to find this link does not support your argument. In fact it destroys it.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolo...kFJKe61zN_NSeEcoA6PftgeyEcbFYzqiTfVP9qbtvoG_8

So we’ve learned three things here. One, the past studies on fish behavior and acidification are mostly BS. Second, you do not even read the spam citations you post. Third, your beliefs are not based on evidence. Because the evidence YOU provide often directly conflicts with your beliefs.

 

And, I'm supplying you with elements you missed concerning the studies you have cited.

I'm glad you accept modeling of natural systems, but I'd point out that models for a warming Earth do not all get the same results. It will be good to see how this new model for low latitudes from your cite pans out. Maybe some group will be inspired to create a second model, for instance. Plus, it will be good to see whether additional phytoplankton in lower latitudes overcomes the affects of warming and acidification.

Also, let's remember that what we see is that ocean harvest is decreasing, and that scientists ascribe that to acidification and warming.

 

I haven’t missed anything. There are negative and positive consequences to warming. I’ve been very clear about that.

I’m simply pointing out the narrative you have been fed isn’t the whole truth. In fact it’s mostly just a theory with little supporting evidence.

You may wish to look at post #38 above. Your compatriot thought she was providing a meta analysis showing negative aspects of acidification. Turns out the meta analysis showed the opposite. It concluded the most cited studies your narrative is partially based on are not actually valid and the reported effects are actually insignificant.

Let’s remember that there are reasons for lost ocean harvest that are much more severe than warming or acidification. And they can actually be addressed in a timely and effective manner, unlike ocean temps and Ph.

 

I have not been "fed a narrative". I've pointed out what you have been unwilling to notice in your own cites. So, you don't get to try to resort to that kind of nonsense.

 

Because it feeds into worldview bias - hence my comment that it was posted because only a specific message was noted not the full picture

 

Even the IPCC acknowledges that there are some “positives” to global warming however on the balance of things the negatives vastly outweigh the positives

 

I am not “dismissing” it but I was evaluating sources. Chesapeake quarterly is not scientific journal no matter who is “funding” it (and that was an odd claim re NASA)

 

Really where is that rule?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

If I specifically mention there are negative aspects to warming I’m not unwilling to notice.

SMH.

 

Show me the evidence. Show me a study concluding warming increases/has increased net mortality related to temperature. Go ahead.

Show me the evidence. Show me the studies that account for adaptions in agriculture that show decreased global food production.

Show me the evidence. Show me the studies on extreme precipitation that account for the positive effects and not just negative effects.

Show me the evidence. Show me the studies that use actual water samples that conclude warming decreases global primary production of oceans.


What? You can’t? You afraid if you try you will accidentally post another meta analysis that directly conflicts with your unsubstantiated opinions?

 

Let me explain how this could work to your benefit. If you followed the rules and posted a pull quote and why you thought your meta analysis on acidification and fish behavior was relevant you would have avoided the embarrassment of posting a meta analysis that directly conflicts with your opinion and argument.

You would have been forced to actually read it and you would have realized it demolished your argument instead of supporting it.

 

Still doesn’t say what you claimed

 

Yes. It does. We shouldn’t just link to another web site. We should use links to support an argument not make it for us.

PF is for discussion, not just saying things like “this is true because the Bible says so”.

I wouldn’t expect someone who posts a meta analysis that conflicts with their opinion to understand. But third parties can learn from your mistakes.