Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 44 of 44

Thread: Global Warming is good for Penguins

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15,203

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Or queens, seanz.. Bloody Chauvinist.And wardd, there may have been fewer deer in 1492., more predators too. Hey, I was trying to be nice to you, shouldn't have been surprised at your snarky comment. Same to you Sound.

    i don't recognize you when you're nice

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    15,203

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    as i said they are not being hunted for food

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in Oz
    Posts
    52,739

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    As usual, no answer and sliding sideways. Night Ian .

    Afternoon Peter. As usual, you put up a theory that you've since not managed to support. What relevance to the argument was some lackey's experiment involving concentrations of carbon dioxide 500% greater than exist in our atmosphere past the noses of some organisms?

    Meanwhile, there's a technical discussion of ocean acidification on wiki. It finishes with this:

    .... it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

    I'd rather look back at my life and say "I can't believe I did that" instead of being there saying "I wish I'd done that"

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,265

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    No doubt, unfortunately a lot of those carbonates form the shells of a variety of life forms, often those at the bottom of the food chain. They will be extinct before the chemistry self corrects. You're no zoologist mate .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in Oz
    Posts
    52,739

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    No doubt, unfortunately a lot of those carbonates form the shells of a variety of life forms, often those at the bottom of the food chain. They will be extinct before the chemistry self corrects. You're no zoologist mate .
    I never claimed to be, but I see you are possessed with something, presumably predictive foresight?

    This from wiki. Perhaps you can explain your claim against the history?



    Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

    I'd rather look back at my life and say "I can't believe I did that" instead of being there saying "I wish I'd done that"

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,265

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Wot are you trying to prove Ian ? That carbonate shells don't dissolve in acid?

    Go have a beer or something useful .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in Oz
    Posts
    52,739

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    Wot are you trying to prove Ian ? That carbonate shells don't dissolve in acid?

    Go have a beer or something useful .
    Sorry Peter, I just saw some stupid claims on this thread... and I asked for them to be substantiated. They haven't been.... they appear to be nothing more than p!ss on the wall
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

    I'd rather look back at my life and say "I can't believe I did that" instead of being there saying "I wish I'd done that"

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,265

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    Claims? That acidification will continue to toxic levels? Nothing outrageous there Ian.
    That acidification is fatal to krill, yes, but it will dissolve their shells and make them inviable far sooner .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Palma de Mallorca, Balearic Islands
    Posts
    3,448

    Default Re: Global Warming is good for Penguins

    I have posted this before, and if you want more info on the subject of using sulfuric acid as a nuetralising agent in sea water I will try to assist. Not all acids are the same.

    Note: some understanding of chemistry (approximately A-Level) is necessary to understand this post. The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO2 dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less basic]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].
    As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline and basic. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral.
    To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. What sort of change are we talking about? Possibly a change of pH of 0.2 units this century, say from 8.2 to 8.0. That would mean by definition that the concentration of the ‘acidic’ H+ ions would still be no more than 10% of their concentration in pure water.
    The so-called science behind this ‘acid ocean’ scare is highly questionable. Firstly, an increasing concentration of CO2 in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans (as it does on the land), and so increases the growth of plant life in the ocean, including phytoplankton, upon which ‘graze’ zooplankton, which is food for a vast range of sea animals, including whales.
    Secondly, it’s not possible through lifeless inorganic chemistry to predict what is happening with living processes. Fish pump huge quantities (hundreds of millions of tonnes annually) of available carbonate in the oceans as a byproduct of the systems that enable them to survive in high salinity. This is using the energy of life processes to buck the normal dissolved inorganic carbon equilibria. The calcium carbonate of dead calcifying organisms dissolves naturally in seawater. What stops a sea creature’s shell from dissolving away is the living creature’s continually producing more calcium carbonate, just like a land animal continually produces skin cells to replace those that are lost to the environment.
    Thirdly, an increasing concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon (e.g. dissolved carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) makes the process of laying down calcium carbonate in shells efficient. This is because there is a far greater supply of calcium ions (441ppm) in seawater than dissolved inorganic carbon (90ppm) and any increase in dissolved carbon dioxide simply pushes the reactions towards the production of more bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The reactions are reversible and in equilibria:
    CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3- <=> H+ + H+ + CO32-
    Add more CO2 at the left and the reaction proceeds to a greater or lesser extent to the right. Most of the additional carbon ends up as bicarbonate. Note that as the reaction is driven to the right by the dissolution of additional CO2 there is increased production of H+ ions, so acidity is increasing (= decreasing pH).
    Fourthly, the situation is completely different from the case where pH is artificially lowered by adding, say, hydrochloric acid, where there would be no addition of dissolved inorganic carbon. Unfortunately, many scientists have failed to understand this basic chemistry and have conducted crude experiments on shellfish by adding mineral acids to seawater. Whilst this duly lowers the pH, it drives the equilibrium reactions in the opposite direction, so is completely invalid as an experimental model. In the equilibrium equation above, introducing mineral acid (which introduces no additional dissolved inorganic carbon) adds H+ ions on the right of the equilibrium equation, which drives the reaction to the left. The increase in H+ ions (equivalent to lower pH), arises because the experimenter is tipping in mineral acid and is thereby forcing the reaction drastically to reduce carbonate and to increase dissolved carbon dioxide, which will come out of solution into the atmosphere as bubbles, decarbonizing the seawater. But if increasing atmospheric CO2 is the driver, the reaction is forced the other way; if mineral acid is the driver, the pH goes down and carbonates and possibly bicarbonates also go down. Looking at pH alone tells us absolutely nothing about the concentrations of carbonates, bicarbonates, dissolved CO2, equilibria, reaction rates or reaction directions. At the very least we also need to know the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon. Moreover, calcium carbonate dissolves in alkaline seawater (pH 8.2) 15 times faster than in pure water (pH 7.0), so it is silly, meaningless nonsense to focus on pH.
    At pH 8, seawater is supersaturated with carbonate. Why does this excess carbonate not precipitate out as calcium carbonate, since there are so many free calcium ions in the water? This seldom happens because of the presence of magnesium ions in seawater that preferentially ion pair with the carbonate in solution. With ion pairing, the reaction moves further to the right than would be the case without magnesium ions, yet without precipitation of magnesium and calcium carbonate salts, and this ensures there is an abundance of dissolved carbonate ions available for living organisms in spite of the low alkalinity. Moreover, phosphorus and dissolved organic compounds permit high levels of carbonate to exist without precipitation. Seawater is a truly marvelous and complex chemical system, which includes non-volatile borate, phosphate and silicate buffers.
    Increasing CO2 partial pressure in a CO2/carbonate equilibrium will always drive the reaction towards the production of more dissolved inorganic carbon, irrespective of any associated reduction in pH arising from the shift in equilibrium itself. So if atmospheric CO2 increases, leading to increased dissolution of CO2, we can be sure that there will be a higher concentration of available carbon – the complete opposite of what the scare mongers are telling us. It seems that those creating the ‘ocean acidification’ scare would like us to believe that a reduction in pH is analogous to tipping mineral acid in the oceans, which would indeed be damaging, and would liberate CO2 from the oceans and decarbonize it, whereas the effect of increasing dissolution of CO2 is beneficial both to marine plants and animals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •