New science findings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Thanks, read it, didn't answer my question. I live by the sea. There have been more and more algae blooms noticable. These obviously contain carbon, and grow fastest in the summer.

Algae blooms are not caused by acidification, that is more to do with phosphate runoff from agricultural land.
 
Yes, it is saying that the current knowledge is inadequate and needs far more research. One thing I have never been able to understand though is how can more CO2 be absorbed by the oceans if they get warmer due to global warming? The solubility of gases are inversely proportional to the temperature so there ought to be less not more absorption.

while the oceans temperatures are rising, there are still vast areas of ocean where the temperature is low enough to continue to absorb co2

the la nina effect in the pacific ocean is an example as are the various arctic and subarctic areas

please also remember that the oceans surface area temperature is higher than just a few feet down

however, you are correct in that much more research needs to be done and it is important that we do so
 
Algae blooms are not caused by acidification, that is more to do with phosphate runoff from agricultural land.

I understand that. My point is that algae is composed primarily of carbon, no? You are talking about the ocean chemicaly absorbing carbon.
I am asking if plant growth is accounted for anywhere, since it certainly grows faster when it is warmer.
 
I understand that. My point is that algae is composed primarily of carbon, no? You are talking about the ocean chemicaly absorbing carbon.
I am asking if plant growth is accounted for anywhere, since it certainly grows faster when it is warmer.

All plants grow faster when it is warmer plus the warmer the water the less CO2 is absorbed.
 
Yes, yes this is just some grand conspiracy by thousands of competing scientist from all over the world who are focused on denying you your right to drive your F-150. I do see your point.

Look to Solyndra as an example of the end-product of the conspiracy. Rich people conspiring to defraud the masses by way of government regulations justified by the propaganda efforts of the believers in the "cause". Mann, Briffa, Jones,Schnieder, and now our newest example of scientists who will lie to make their case and even boldly admit to the nefarious intent, Peter Gleick.

How much do you trust your scientists, moron?
 
Look to Solyndra as an example of the end-product of the conspiracy. Rich people conspiring to defraud the masses by way of government regulations justified by the propaganda efforts of the believers in the "cause". Mann, Briffa, Jones,Schnieder, and now our newest example of scientists who will lie to make their case and even boldly admit to the nefarious intent, Peter Gleick.

How much do you trust your scientists, moron?

Mutt thinks if he says 'competing' scientists enough times it will become true. Of course, when they are all pushing the SAME agenda... hmmm....
 
It's possible that algae blooms (in warmer conditions with more sunlight) would remove enough CO2 through photosynthesis that the water could continue accelerated sequestering of CO2 from the atmosphere, but stasis would be reached very quickly.
 
It's possible that algae blooms (in warmer conditions with more sunlight) would remove enough CO2 through photosynthesis that the water could continue accelerated sequestering of CO2 from the atmosphere, but stasis would be reached very quickly.

Not if the algae is continuously harvested.
 
CO2 is absorbed by water and the rate of absorption is a function of the water temp and the atmospheric pressure. Cooler water absorbs more CO2 than warmer water. The process is refered to as sequestration. The buzzword you likely know is "carbon sink".

Ah ha! I've found a link that will meet even your stringent filtering standards.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/

Awesome page, thanks. It seems that while the seawater itself may chemicaly disovle more CO2 if cold, the plant growth is greater when warm and well lit.
Therefore the notion that colder oceans absorb more CO2 is not completely accurate.
 
Awesome page, thanks. It seems that while the seawater itself may chemicaly disovle more CO2 if cold, the plant growth is greater when warm and well lit.
Therefore the notion that colder oceans absorb more CO2 is not completely accurate.

You seem to just skip the fact that he also said this:

It's possible that algae blooms (in warmer conditions with more sunlight) would remove enough CO2 through photosynthesis that the water could continue accelerated sequestering of CO2 from the atmosphere, but stasis would be reached very quickly.
 
You seem to just skip the fact that he also said this:

It's possible that algae blooms (in warmer conditions with more sunlight) would remove enough CO2 through photosynthesis that the water could continue accelerated sequestering of CO2 from the atmosphere, but stasis would be reached very quickly.

Well, no I didn't skip that.
If you read the page tinfoil linked to, it turns out that stasis is not quickly reached due to the fact that the carbon in particulate form drops to the bottom of the ocean where it becomes sequestered for millions of years. In fact our oil and coal were formed that way.

The plant growth evenutaly sequesters carbon more or less permanently, whereas the CO2 disolved by cool seawater is released back into the atmosphere
when the ocean currents cycle into the tropics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top