Ocean Acidification In The Mesozoic

Experts say that 400 PPM CO is making the oceans acidic, and dissolving the carbonate shells of shellfish.

This is utter bullshit. The Mesozoic shellfish below lived at 1,800 PPM CO2 – more than four times higher than current levels. Oceans are buffered by alkali rock like limestone and basalt, and can’t become acidic.

ScreenHunter_7944 Mar. 15 14.33

Climate experts are scoundrels who are paid to lie, while pretending to be actual scientists.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Ocean Acidification In The Mesozoic

  1. Billy Liar says:

    The Mesozoic shellfish below lived at 1,800 PPM CO2

    Yeah, but look at it now …

  2. peter says:

    What happens to the massive numbers of plankton/diatoms in the lakes and oceans with increased CO2 levels? (they are responsible for ~25 % of the O2 in the atmosphere) If diatom density is increased significantly in response to changes in dissolved CO2 and they in turn convert silicates into to glass (to form their shells) during photosynthesis would not that lock up vast quantities of carbon in their shells as they die and sink to the ocean floor.I recall a similar phenomenon discussed with terrestrial plants where the leaf to root ratio changes (diminishes) as CO2 increases locking up carbon in their root system(top soil)?

    I seriously doubt the mathematical climate models have any idea what the effect of these feedback loops is. Pete Kremers MD

  3. Hugh K says:

    Dude…that was like a long time ago. Like the Benghazi era.

  4. gator69 says:

    There’s your death spiral!

  5. Latitude says:

    Oceans are buffered by alkali rock like limestone and basalt, and can’t become acidic.

    exactly…..where do they think the carbon comes from?

  6. tabnumlock says:

    The relentless accumulation of Limestone means the eventual extinction of C3 plants (95% of plants) unless some way can be found to replenish CO2. Hmmmm.

    • Latitude says:

      it was the C3’s that lowered it…limestone is too slow

    • Neal S says:

      There are ways the CO2 could be replenished even without having to burn up all our fuel to do it. There are reserves of liquified CO2 in deep oceans and these can actually be inexpensively brought to the surface. I’ve mentioned this previously.

    • Neal S says:

      A possible means for replenishment of CO2, or CO2 liberation and without reducing atmospheric Oxygen to gain the increase in CO2.

      What if a pipe was constructed and lowered in the ocean, and water was pumped out. The pipe has perforations in the last few sections that wind up nearest the ocean floor. Some weights are also attached to the bottom end of the pipe via some cables. Some floats are attached near the top end of the pipe, but below the ocean surface.

      When the bottom end of pipe hits a portion of the ocean floor where there are reserves of liquefied CO2, we start pumping water out of the top end of the tube which is now well enough above the surface such that swells do not put water back into it as we begin to pump the water out.

      Since the liquefied CO2 is denser than water, I would expect the fluid level in the pipe to begin to fall below sea level as more liquid CO2 is moving up the pipe.

      At some point the rising level of liquid CO2 would reach a point where the pressure become less than that required to keep it liquid and a change of state will likely occur. Bubbles of CO2 will rise and there may be enough of them to carry some of the water up and out of the top end of the pipe.

      I also expect that if we keep pumping long enough, we will eventually start getting a stream of CO2 coming from the top end of the pipe. I also imagine we can stop pumping, and that the stream will continue on its own as long as there are liquid CO2 reserves at the bottom end of the pipe, and the perforations do not get plugged up with debris.

      Such deep ocean CO2 pipes that spew out CO2 without requiring any additional ongoing power, could increase the atmospheric CO2 levels. It might even be possible to harness some power from their operation.

      • Disillusioned says:

        It would continue on its own. There are CO2 vent pipes in two deep lakes in Africa.

        CO2-phobics would be freaked out at such an idea. We’re living in such a propaganda-controlled era.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Yes, as Disillusioned points out, a very similar operation is used in Africa to de-carbonate lakes so that they will not experience a catastrophic outgassing and kill people in the surrounding villages. For the deep sea pipe, no need to use pumps, even to start it. The only reason why the liquid there is stable is because it is barely above zero Celsius and the pressure is enormous. Just stick a heater coil in the lower end of the pipe. As soon as the bubbles form, the pressure at that end will also drop and the pipe become self-pumping — at least as long as the CO2 lasts. Heck, instead of a heater coil, just put a fair sized lump of lithium with a slow-dissolving water soluble coating on the end of the pipe. In fact, let’s just use a lump of plutonium for heat on the end. That’ll upset the faux-Greenies even more…

        • Disillusioned says:

          LOL, Jason. I’m not so sure I like your plutonium idea. A safer, simpler option may be close to where CO2 accumulates and stores – find a way to transport the hydrothermal energy from fissure vents close by from where the CO2 originates.

          Once set up, yes, it would operate on its own. I envision buoyed geysers at the surface, to compensate for tides. Massive depths, though. Such an idea put into action would be quite an undertaking. But doable.

        • Neal S says:

          Jason suggests a heater coil at the bottom of the deep ocean pipe might do.

          Jason, have you ever watched water in a deep pot boil? For deep enough pots, water at the bottom near the heat source can reach boiling point and bubbles form. As the bubbles rise, they exchange energy with the cooler water above and shrink and vanish without ever reaching the top.

          You might have to inject enough heat with your coil to warm that portion of the column within the tube up to a level where the pressure is low enough to permit the bubbles to continue without collapsing. You would also have to do this despite heat-loss through the pipe/tube walls to surrounding ocean. Depending on many factors, it may well be much less power to mechanically pump as I have suggested.

          Another advantage of the mechanical pumping, is the confirmation that liquid CO2 is being drawn into the pipe. Since the CO2 is denser at depth, the water level at the top of the pipe will start to drop below sea level as the CO2 is drawn up. If the water level does not drop, then liquid CO2 is not being drawn into the pipe.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Neal S! “Depending on many factors, it may well be much less power to mechanically pump as I have suggested.”

          Yes, in the real world, the pump might be better — but if I had to bet a small sum (small enough that I wouldn’t be hurt too badly if I lost!) I think that probably a relatively small heater would work. Here is why I think that. Your example of boiling water raises a good point, but in some significant ways the CO2 is different. The main reason is that the liquid phase of CO2 is only barely possible at the conditions of the deep sea. Decrease the pressure by a small amount (insert hand waving here, but I am too lazy to look up the phase chart), say ten or twenty percent and the liquid CO2 will flash to gas. Likewise, raise the temperature a small amount (insert more hand waving here, too!) say five degrees C and it flashes to gas even at the high pressure. There is still the question of the rising CO2 bubbles dissolving into the sea water as they ascend, but whether they do or not, they will still be lowering the density of the column as they rise up.

          Using your boiling water scenario, a better example would be this. Imagine a pressure cooker with hot water at one atmosphere pressure inside it. Instead of a weighted pressure relief valve, you have a 10 meter tall column of water. Heat the pressure cooker just a bit more and the increased temperature will begin to blow steam into the column — which lowers the column pressure and before you know it, you have a blowout. Likewise, you could leave the pressure cooker sitting at one atmosphere and pump out a bit of the tall column, which once again gives us rising steam, which lowers the column pressure, which gives us a blow out again. Either heat or pumping will work, and once it starts it will continue by itself until the pressure cooker has blown its fluids.

          Anyway, I am more than willing to use a pump, and you may very well be right that it is more practical, but I suspect that some fairly modest heating would start a self-perpetuating pump. This is one of those questions that would be fun to test in the real world. Know any billionaires with a lot of curiosity? 🙂

        • Jason Calley says:

          I just realized…. the pressure cooker example I mentioned with a column of water for pressure containment. Did I just describe a geyser?

      • DD More says:

        100-Megawatt Power Plant via Variations in Ocean Temperature
        Add a bit of ammonia and you don’t need the pumps and can even get a bit of power out of it.
        http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-Megawatt-Power-Plant-via-Variations-in-Ocean-Temperature

  7. gator69 says:

    SST’s are so high, and the oceans have become so acidic, that buoys are dying off!

    “numerous buoys have ceased to function over the years”

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/13/spiegel-noaa-embarrassment-over-four-years-of-failed-el-nino-forecasts-numerous-buoys-have-ceased-to-function/#sthash.JGTLz60x.sVIYo8x3.dpuf

    It’s worse than we though!

  8. Rosco says:

    CO2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to the claimed effects of global warming/climate change !

    Warm water – less CO2 solubility !

    Acid pH in water – less CO2 solubility !

    The atmosphere on the other hand has no constraints on how much CO2 can be “dissolved” if you like. Thousands of ppm – really no limit other than total co2 available – is easily possible.

    Ocean acidification by atmospheric CO2 is utter bullshit !

    • theyouk says:

      Interesting point Rosco. Would be interesting to see some charts on the temperature/CO2 saturation ‘balance’ (I’m guessing this may change based on depth/pressure also) and acidity/CO2 solubility.

      “It’s like they don’t know the basics of acidity…” (sorry, it was right there)

  9. rah says:

    There is no evidence that during the Mesozoic that reefs formed north or south of those that exist in the present day. I wonder what the sea food would have been like then. Though fishing would have been an adventure even if some dino didn’t come along and snap you up what you caught might. That specimen, if edible, would have fed a village if man had been around at the time.

  10. Dan says:

    If the oceans gets a little bit less alkalic, they are still alkalic and therefore the use of the word acidification is completely wrong.

    • rah says:

      Yep. Besides the pH scale is HS level science stuff and thus anyone with at least a little education should know that before something can pass from Alkaline or base to acidic or vice versa, it must first become neutral at some point.

  11. alakhtal says:

    Reblogged this on Liberalism is Trust Fucked with Prudence. Conservatism is Distrust Tainted with Fear and commented:
    A Mustignore Misleading Headline of vague abstruse substance.
    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell. What a Jackass?
    Wazzamatter, son? Afraid to shit with the big dogs?

  12. alakhtal says:

    A Mustignore Misleading Headline of vague abstruse substance.
    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell. What a Jackass?
    Wazzamatter, son? Afraid to shit with the big dogs?

  13. KuhnKat says:

    Can’t you tell the poor things shell was dangerously THIN just like Rachel Carson’s eggshells??

  14. hell_is_like_newark says:

    Years back when I was a kid into aquariums, there was a trick to get good coral growth in salt water setups: Bubble in CO2 as that would make a healthy environment for algae growth that the coral needed to thrive.

    This knowledge made me very suspicious then the claim came in that increased CO2 was going to kill coral and experiments were done to prove it. I later found out one of the more press ballyhooed experiments didn’t involve increasing CO2. They just dumped carbonic acid into the tank.

    Another researcher repeated the test (reported in the NY Times of all places) by bubbling in CO2. The result was a slight reduction in pH and an increase in coral growth.

  15. AndyG55 says:

    I’m sure most sensible people would realise that for millions of years, somewhat acidic rivers and somewhat acidic rain have fed our oceans.

    Yet they remain steadfastly alkaline !!!!

  16. Dave N says:

    I had a discussion with an acquaintance of mine regarding historical conditions. He said that we can’t really go by historical records because we weren’t around to make accurate measurements, but he is absolutely sure that humans are causing the climate to change because it’s much more different than the past; you know, the one we can’t trust historical data for.

    He should probably stick to lecturing in physiology.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    GRUMBLE, WordUnimpressed is still censoring my comments. (Put in so it is not a duplicate)
    ……………..
    Toss your buddy these:
    Instructions were written and given out to the observers in 1882.
    https://archive.org/stream/instructionsforv00unitrich#page/20/mode/2up

    What is never mentioned is the original system had two separate thermometers. One mercury for the high temperature and an alcohol thermometer for the minimum temperature. No mention is made of the switch to the Six min/max thermometer. I went hunting for the reason.

    Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918 mentions the Six thermometer and says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers mentioned above.

    That book is a real eye opener for anyone who thinks the old measurements were no good. See page 68 through 77

    Another book The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891 also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph. It is a continuous recording instrument.

    This passage gives an indication of how careful these ‘amateurs’ were:

    Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

    I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

    This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

    On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
    http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html

    • Gail Combs says:

      WordUnimpressed REALLY REALLY hates John Kehr’s website I can not get any form of the URL to post so please search title.

      This one is a real kick in the teeth to the CAGW conjecture.

      Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly from Chem Engineer, John Kehr

      ….Now for something interesting. In January [2013] the anomaly in the Arctic was well above average. By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average. Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2. That 6% increase in rate of energy loss meant that the Arctic ended up with a negative anomaly in February. The dramatic change in Arctic anomaly played a big role in the drop of the global anomaly in February.

      The rate of energy loss is a self-correcting mechanism. Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way. As a whole the Earth lost ~ 4 W/m^2 more than average over the entire surface in the month of January. Data for February is not yet available, but it will be close to average because the anomaly was closer to average. The higher rate of energy loss in January resulted in a more average February. That is how the climate operates.

      Finally I have to get a dig in at CO2. In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past….

      A much longer comment on the whole temperature adjustment mess:
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fixing-the-past-at-the-ministry-of-truth/#comment-477742

  18. Easy way to shut the “ocean acidification” crowd up, just ask them, “What was the pH during the Jurassic when CO2 was 2000 ppm, or when life began during the pre-cambrian when the CO2 level was 100,000 ppm? (10%)”

    • Disillusioned says:

      Facts don’t shut them up. When they cannot logically address facts, they demonize somebody, prevaricate, change the subject, throw up straw man arguments, serve up red herring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s