The Ocean Fertilization Plan & Its Potential Consequences | GEO GIRL

Then we had better go back into an ice age then, fast. Sounds like things were so much better when everything north of the 49th Parallel was frozen under a mile thick sheet of ice.

I would say there is a hell of a lot of advantages to the planet warming to its more "normal" temperature, and not having permanent ice sheets. Not the least of which is a hell of a lot more of the small portion of the planet that is not permanently underwater becomes habitable by a hell of a lot more of the ecosystem. And not "one trick ponies" that require a very specific ecosystem that almost nothing else can live in.

 

No, you were dismissing it. Now as usual the spin comes out.

Funny, how unless any source absolutely echoes the IPCC, you pretty much outright dismiss it. That is a clear pattern with you.

 

They demolish their own arguments all the damned time. That is clear to anybody that knows real science.

Like for how long have they been screaming the planet has never been hotter than it is now? Or that the CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now?

Every time they pull nonsense like that, I want to smack them upside the head with my Geology 101 books.

 

Appealing to times when humans didn't populate Earth is just silly. Humans do not work in a geologic time frame. We just don't live that long .

The problem is the rate of change - fast enough that we are not keeping up with the changes humans must make.

 

Well, basically “they” haven’t

Now the denialosphere headed by misinformationalists like Faux News - they like to make claims like this but real science doesn’t

 

No, only nonscientists and liars claim that. All actual scientists know that it is due to overfishing.

Right: especially by catching the fish.

 

Or not enough waterflow bringing food into their ecosystem. Or an increase in predation by other species. There can be a thousand and one reasons, and I am always highly suspicious of anybody that immediately jumps to it was caused by people. Because invariably they already have that as the answer for everything, no matter what.

Less rainfall, that is because of people. More rainfall, that is because of people. Wilf populations rising, that is because of people. Deer populations falling, that is because of people. When the answer in a knee-jerk situation is always "because of people", I tend to dismiss them as childish thinkers that use that as the answer to everything.

Not unlike religious zealots, where the answer to everything is "God".

 

The point is that one of those factors is changes in ocean temperature, which can result in population reductions and migration toward preferred environments, as show by crab populations in the north Pacific, coral environments changing, etc.

The presence of other causes doesn't somehow invalidate this one.

 

Add the effects of "ocean acidification" to the list of debunked alarmist claims.
Un-refutable Evidence of Alarmists’ Ocean Acidification Misinformation in 3 Easy Lessons
Guest Blogger
…any acidification that converts sea water carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions is actually helping reefs and shell-making which only absorb the critical CO2 and bicarbonate ions. . . .

 

I don't know a lot about marine biology, but I always knew the notion that a bit more CO2 was somehow a threat to marine animals that make carbonate shells was certain to be absurd nonscience.

 

This seems to be a false argument. The fact that one's house burning down will lead to a reduced property tax, is not a benefit that compensates for the loss. Why do you think we all want to misrepresent the devastating effects of climate change, on marine life? I am interested to understand your conception of "our" thinking. We are so enamored of alternate energy sources, or we just hate oil so much, for some reason unrelated to Climate Change, that we are simply fabricating the emergency?

Basic science explains why ocean acidification is toxic to corals: because acid dissolves the calcium carbonate outer skeleton of the polyp (animal). And the health of coral reefs, is intrinsically related to the health of the marine life environment.

<Snip>
Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. An estimated 25 percent of all marine life, including over 4,000 species of fish, are dependent on coral reefs at some point in their life cycle. An estimated 1 billion people worldwide benefit from the many ecosystem services coral reefs provide including food, coastal protection, and income from tourism and fisheries.

Healthy coral reefs provide:

Habitat, feeding, spawning, and nursery grounds for over 1 million aquatic species, including commercially harvested fish species.

Food for people living near coral reefs, especially on small islands.

Recreation and tourism opportunities, such as fishing, scuba diving, and snorkeling, which contribute billions of dollars to local economies.

Protection of coastal infrastructure and prevention of loss of life from storms, tsunamis, floods, and erosion.

Sources of new medicines that can be used to treat diseases and other health problems.
<End Snip>

https://www.epa.gov/coral-reefs/basic-information-about-coral-reefs#:~:text=Coral reefs provide habitat for,and many species of fish.

 

No, it does not, as explained in #60.

 

Have you ever stopped to consider the house isn’t burning down?

I have no idea why ya’ll do what you do. But you all lack understanding of science. You have been fed a one sided narrative on most aspects of climate change. It’s not your fault. You are just victims.

The simple fact you focus only on warming waters in relation to coral health proved my point. When have you complained about deforestation effects on coral reefs? Or agricultural practices? Or fishing practices? Things that can be addressed without convincing China etal. to stop burning coal? You guys are unaware that warming waters effect on corals pales in comparison to other factors because you’ve been fed a one sided narrative.

I’ll bet you are unaware that coral recruitment outside of “traditional” coral regions is up over 75%. You’ve never been told corals can relocate to cooler waters. You’ve probably never been told corals over 25 feet in depth are barely studied, and that we are finding large pristine coral reefs below that depth routinely now that technology has improved. It’s kind of like the polar bears. You were told they were going away, but weren’t told we never knew how many there were to begin with to establish a baseline for population studies.

I like coral reefs as much as the next guy I suppose. I just happen to get my information on corals from science instead of a journalist or politicians.

My arguments aren’t false. They are based on comprehensive science. Not just bits and pieces that fit a narrative.

If you want healthy coral reefs you must first study the reasons they are unhealthy. You haven’t done that. You only know of one reason. Ironically the one reason that can’t really be addressed. More easily solved problems with corals you aren’t even aware of. I’m just here to educate.

Calling that education a false argument doesn’t change the facts I present. When people believe their house is burning down when it isn’t, their decisions are likely to be less than rational. I’m just trying to bring a bit of rationality back to the issue at hand.

 

You provided no sources or snips, of the "comprehensive science," which you claim to be the basis of your opinion. To be honest, I am doubtful you will be able to produce a credible scientific article, to back up the idea that coral reefs are not suffering, and will not suffer more, due to an abundance of CO2, turning the oceans less alkaline, and more acidic. But I would love to have you wow me, with that science.

 

Your linked blogger, debunked nothing. There were no charts, of ocean acidification. And I saw no explanation that more acidic oceans were not harmful to corals. So you will have to try again, but your opening, absolute failure, which you had treated as a "case closed" victory, does not inspire one with much confidence of seeing anything of merit, further down the line, from you.

The data in the graphs, below, clearly demonstrates that
1) as atmospheric CO2 rises, so does the ocean's CO2 level; and that
2) this corresponds, in unmistakeable reflection, with increasing ocean acidity (decline in pH level).

You understand that lower pH means more acidic, right?

 

Really?

1. The Undisputed Science: The illustration shows how CO2 breaks down into 3 different molecules when CO2 combines with water, collectively called Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC). First one of water’s H+ ion pops off to form Bicarbonate ions. Bicarbonate ions now contribute over 90% of the oceans current DIC (red curve) . Another H+ proton pops off to form Carbonate ions which constitue ~9% of DIC (green curve). No more than 1% of invading CO2 remains as CO2 (blue curve).

[not printable]
The added H+ ions can make the water more acidic. The pH scale indicates H+ concentration. At pH 2 there is 1 part H+ for every 100 (102) parts water. At that low pH, there are so many H+ that they are more likely to re-join bicarbonate ions, nearly 99% of the DIC remains as CO2. At pH 10, H+ ions are rare, 1 part H+ for every 10,000,000,000 (1010) parts water. With so few H+ to re-join carbonates and bicarbonates, DIC is ~ 90+% carbonate ions.

Distilled water has pH 7. It is considered the neutral pH because the H+ ions that pop off a water molecule are balanced by the negative OH- ions (alkalinity). In comparison, ocean water at pH 8.1 is 10 times less acidic than distilled water because the Bicarbonate ions and Carbonate ions are great buffers that can re-join with H+ ions and prevent the water from becoming as acidic as distilled water.

• The Dissolving Snail Shell Hoax: This is NOAA’s insidious illustration of a dissolving shell of a dead sea butterfly in 7.8 pH water, a pH that models predict will occur from continued burning of fossil fuels.

First, consider that living sea butterflies’ shells, and virtually every mollusk shell, have a protective organic covering that prevents any shell dissolution. Likewise living coral polyps protect their reef skeleton.

Second, consider that the dead shell would have dissolved faster in the more acidic pH 7 of distilled water. Thus the addition of CO2 and its buffering molecules actually slow down any shell dissolving by maintaining ocean pH at 8.1 to 7.8.

• The Reduced Calcification Hoax: Shells and reefs are made of calcium carbonate. The hoax abuses one true scientific factoid: At a lower pH, the added H+ ions will re-join with the ocean’s buffering carbonate ions. That reduces sea water’s available carbonate ions by converting them to bicarbonate ion. So, alarmists’ falsely claim acidification will reduce seawater’s carbonate ions, making it more difficult to make calcium carbonate shells or reefs.

The truth is: not a single researcher has detected in any shell or reef making organism an ability to import carbonate ions directly from sea water to make their shells or reefs. They all only import CO2 and the abundant bicarbonate ions, which they then convert internally to a carbonate ion.

As in the illustration of the steps in coral calcification, CO2 (highlighted by blue rectangle) which has no charge, freely passes through the corals outer lipid membranes. Once inside, an enzyme converts CO2 into bicarbonate ions which traps bicarbonate ions because charged ions cannot pass freely through membranes.

Then, special bicarbonate transporters (highlighted by green rectangles) allow bicarbonate ions to pass through membranes and into the space where the reef skeleton is made. Again, no carbonate transporters have been detected to allow import of carbonate ions.

In contrast, the calcium pump imports calcium ions for reef making directly from the seawater, but because they are positively charged, they must also pump H+ ions out of the reef making space to maintain an electrical balance. Conveniently, pumping H+ ions out also raises internal pH and causes the imported bicarbonate ions to convert to the required carbonate ions. The shell-making chemistry of all mollusks is very similar.

Finally, the calcium and newly converted carbonate ions combine to form the calcium carbonate building blocks for reef skeletons and shells.

Thus, any acidification that converts sea water carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions is actually helping reefs and shell-making which only absorb the critical CO2 and bicarbonate ions. Knowing the real science, I can no longer trust the IPCC or NOAA’s acidification alarmism misinformation.

 

Nobody has claimed some reefs aren’t suffering. If you can quote me saying any such thing feel free. If you can’t use the PF quote function to provide a quote of me claiming acidity (and temperature) don’t affect reefs, your above posts to me are pure fallacy in which I have NO interest.

If you ever actually want to be informed on the relevant science, I can inform you. But I’m not engaging fallacy.

Oh, I don’t post opinions on matters of science. I only report on the evidence produced through application of the scientific method.

 

Yes, really: there are no charts, in your linked site, showing the health of coral reefs. I had read the article-- so your reproducing of it, was unnecessary. Your doing this, though, will prove my point, to others who hadn't used your link. Where do you see, anything about the world's actual coral reefs? This is nothing but a theoretical argument. When the theory is contradicted by observable fact, then the theory losses the argument.

Here is a report, from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, based on over 2 million worldwide observations, in 73 countries, from over 12,000 sites, representing the work of 300 scientists.

<Snip>
Coral reefs occupy less than 1 per cent of the ocean floor …
… yet they are home to more than 25 per cent of marine life.
Human activity and a warming planet are rapidly degrading these precious and fragile ecosystems...


The Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2020 is a report by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), a network of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). Its findings show that between 2009 and 2018 there was a progressive loss of about 14 per cent of the coral from the world's coral reefs primarily caused by recurring, large-scale bleaching events. In all, about 11,700 square kilometres of hard coral, which is more than all the coral currently living on Australia's coral reefs, were lost.

The report paints a picture of four decades of declining coral abundance, more frequent bleaching, and increasing amounts of algae, which is a sign of declining reef health. However, the report also reveals the incredible ability of coral reefs to recover when they are not disturbed by local and global threats. Both findings should motivate swift action. While coral reefs remain mostly hidden from sight, their health must be at the forefront of environmental efforts and decision-making processes.

This report:
Is the first in 13 years

Examines the status of the world's coral reefs over the last 40 years

Represents the work of more than 300 scientists from the global scientific community

Is founded on a global dataset comprised of almost 2 million observations

From more than 12,000 sites

In 73 countries

Across 10 GCRMN regions
<End Snip>

How does your source explain that 14% loss of global coral reefs, over just 9 or 10 years?

One reliable measure, of the weakness of an argument, is how quickly, and how often, it resorts to straw men (or to off-subject tangents). A straw man, is what you are using, above, to pretend that anyone has claimed GCC will lead to the death of "all sea life." That is, in fact, a ludicrous litmus, for concern. It is negatively affecting marine populations, already, but that process will greatly accelerate, as oceans become progressively more acidic.

By the way, in contradiction of your earlier claims-- that those who raise alarms about the negative effects of Climate Change, universally exclude any positive information-- see my snip, above:

The report paints a picture of four decades of declining coral abundance, more frequent bleaching, and increasing amounts of algae, which is a sign of declining reef health. However, the report also reveals the incredible ability of coral reefs to recover when they are not disturbed by local and global threats. Both findings should motivate swift action.


One more of your arguments, debunked.
Note that it does not conclude that, because of this resilience, there is no need to take steps, ourselves, to address the decline in the abundance of coral reefs.

LOL-- you would be better off, every time you think you perceive "nonsense like that," if you took it as motivation to buy a hearing aid, or get a new prescription, for your eyeglasses. No one claims that "the planet has never been hotter than it is now." I assume that whatever statements you allude to, are only talking about recorded temperatures (which are limited to not just the short period in Earth's history, while man has existed, but only to the time since our creation of thermometers).

 

So you are saying that you are only trying to confuse the issue, with fact-based misdirection?

My point: increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (a major cause of Global Warming), means also a rising level of CO2 in oceans, which serves to acidify them. This process is, overall, very antagonistic towards the plentitude of marine life, on which we rely.

Your point: ?

Do you contest, my main point? Note, I am not saying that all effects are negative. I am talking about the net effect. Am I speaking over your head, here?

 

No points for political blather.

New Studies Suggest Corals Are Rapidly Developing Tolerance To Bleaching, Heat Stress

By Kenneth Richard on 28. August 2023

Scientists report a surprising coral reef resilience to bleaching, as well as a growing 0.1°C per decade heat stress tolerance. The Great Barrier Reef region has reportedly warmed by 0.8°C in the last 150 years (Page et al., 2023). This is warming rate of about 0.05°C per decade. Scientists (Lachs et al., 2023) are now […]


New Study: Coral Reefs Thrive Near Acidic Waters (pH ~6.0) Where Seafloor Vents Emit Up To 95,000 ppm CO2

By Kenneth Richard on 30. March 2020

Though it’s believed the 130 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1750 has caused the ocean waters to “acidify”, on a daily basis 50-380°C metallic acid enriched by CO2 concentrations reaching 60,000 to 95,000 ppm pours through seafloor vents. Nearby coral reefs “thrive” in these high-CO2 conditions. Image Source: PHYS.ORG 50 times more CO2 […]


One New Coral Reef Study Wipes Out Four Climate Alarm Narratives In One Fell Swoop

By Kenneth Richard on 24. February 2022

Corals thrive in multiple-degrees-warmer-than-today waters and their growth is stunted in cooler environments. The warnings peddled by climate alarmists often characterize Earth’s 500 billion corals as critically endangered by modern global warming. But the science itself says corals have been and continue thriving in the Current Warm Period – just as they have in past […]

 

Here is my statement you responded to. I posted this statement in a thread about ocean fertilization. I pointed out some common misconceptions about ocean biology and effects of different phenomena including hurricanes and organisms that thrive in higher acidic environments. Then I posted the statement you responded to.

Then you went off about how my statement was false. And inferring because some organisms suffer from acidification the house was burning down.

Net effect of what? In conjunction with what? You responded to my main point that the common narrative is dishonest because it reports only negative aspects of CLIMATE CHANGE. Are you saying coral bleaching in some areas makes decreased human temperature related mortality from warming irrelevant? That it makes increases productivity of terrestrial plants irrelevant?

You prove my point by focusing on (a small percentage of) corals and ignoring human lives saved by warming. I like coral. I’m glad we are discovering new pristine coral colonies around the world. I’m glad we know corals can repopulate with symbiotic organisms more tolerant to higher temps as long as we aren’t dumping pollutants from terrestrial sources on them. I’m glad corals can populate parts of the ocean once too cold for them.

If we’ve only studied some corals at shallow depths in the warmest waters how do you KNOW there is a net negative effect?

Can you point to a reef being dissolved by acidification? Can you substantiate this claim that corals are being dissolved?

If acidification is dissolving corals why does the Great Barrier Reef have record coral cover since records have been kept?

 

Nope. It's clear and correct.

Actually, it is, which is why some people have burned down their houses.

To justify using government to control other people, to take wealth from some people who have earned it and give it to others who have not, to assume an unearned mantle of virtue, to feel important, etc. There are lots of reasons.

For many socialists and other leftists, anti-fossil-fuel hysteria justifies the kind of anti-capitalist public policy choices they want to promote. That is one reason I, as an anti-capitalist most people on the right would (incorrectly) call a leftist, socialist, or even communist, oppose it: it diverts people's attention from the actual problems of modern finance capitalism that have actual solutions. That may even be its true purpose.

No. Basic science explains why human CO2 emissions are not and cannot be toxic to corals: the oceans are fairly alkaline and cannot become acidic because they are sitting on petatons of alkali rock. Furthermore, corals and all other carbonate-shelled marine animals use the CO2 dissolved in sea water to build their shells, and would perish without it.

None of which is the tiniest bit relevant, as human CO2 emissions are not and cannot be a threat to corals, as proved, repeat, proved above.

Now, the question is, can you find a willingness to know facts that prove your beliefs are false?

 

LOL. That statement was in the context of my conversation with another poster about how ecosystems often depend on a single or small number of species to remain productive. But you will present a strawman below…

I’m well aware of that information.

Here is the post you initially responded to.

Do you see anything about universal exclusion? LOL. You accuse me of strawman above and then you do this?

What’s debunked? You guys lack knowledge. That’s a fact. Why? Because you study narratives, not science.

Another strawman by your definition. I’ve NEVER said anything about not taking steps to address decline!

I think you’ve pretty much destroyed your credibility now.

If you ever want to discuss science I’m in. But the above nonsense doesn’t interest me. Learn a bit about coral if you want to discuss it.

 

In answer to my question, to 557:

Why do you think we all want to misrepresent the devastating effects of climate change, on marine life?

Tell it to a psychiatrist.

I don't know whether to laugh, or shake my head. You believe that "Leftists" share your obsessions. We could not possibly be concerned with the fate of the planet, the human race, or even of the next several generations of our own progeny-- in your perverted reasoning-- at least not, to the same degree of priority, as we are consumed with the desire to promote "anti-capitalist public policy."

It would be pointless to try to "debate" someone who adopts such nonsensical beliefs, as articles of faith.


P.S.-- If you seek it, help is out there.