This is clearly, by far, the most important consideration in the entire thread.
The answer: 27 July 2121, 072121.11356 UTC. Not a microsecond earlier or later.*
Peace,
Chris
*IRONY ALERT!
2 Likes
Aye, right. That would be nuclear energy and the most rapid possible industrialization (including nuclear of course) of sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil, liberating them from ecofascism, sorry the new secular religion of Western imperial environmentalism. The Grand Inga Dam will generate 100 GW, which is a start. No irony.
The increase in CO2 matches a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with phytoplankton. CO2 dissolving into the ocean is the main method of removing CO2, and we have actually seen an increase in CO2 in the oceans. Again, nothing to do with plankton.
The only reason we have 20% O2 in the atmosphere at all instead of 20% CO2 is because plants and especially plankton convert the CO2 to O2. So the question is why hasnāt this CO2 been converted to O2 but is just dissolved in the ocean as you say. The reason is that exposure to UV radiation from the sun reduces plankton effectiveness by 70% so that it cannot handle this extra CO2 we are producing.
I absolutely guarantee you that the CO2 emissions will only increase not decrease. So you can whine about that OR we can shift our focus to the problem of converting that CO2 to O2. Though political parties love swinging problems like this to no effect as political capital without ever doing anything about it. After allā¦ actually solving problems just loses them the club they use to bang on people to scare them in to voting for their party.
Because the release of CO2 is well above the natural rates of removal.
Based on what evidence? Where is your evidence that carbon capture by phytoplankton is down by this much?
This also doesnāt explain past changes in atmospheric CO2. Why was CO2 higher or lower in the past? Why does CO2 always follow temperature?
That doesnāt mean we should ignore the real reason why CO2 is increasing, which is burning fossil fuels.
2 Likes
I have supplied this above already but just look it up yourself. It is a measurable effect. With exposure to more UV radiation than normal the photosynthesis rates rapidly drop by up to 71%. The holes in the ozone layer sitting right above the highest concentrations of plankton, which is near the poles.
Temperature also has an effect on the plankton. They do like the colder temperatures (at least the dominant variants we have now do). But the very fact that this cycle is driven by the temperatures affecting the plankton is a very telling piece of evidence in its own right. IF the CO2 levels has nothing to do with the plankton as you said before then WHY do we have those huge natural variations in the CO2 levels due to temperature? The amplitude of that variation is the same as the man made increase, so a 70% reduction due to increased UV radiation is more than enough to explain that increase. Granted the plankton with reduced effectiveness MIGHT have been able to keep up if our emission were not increasing so much. So I am certainly not saying that emissions are irrelevant in the way you have been saying plankton is irrelevant.
That is only ONE of the reasons CO2 is increasing. And this is only ONE of the reasons why burning so much of our fossil fuels is a bad idea.
What I need to see is the rate of carbon turnover for the entire ocean ecosystem, what part of the total CO2 turnover is dependent on phytoplankton, and actual measurements of how that phytoplankton has changed in the last few decades.
Where is your evidence that increased temperature will reduce carbon turnover by phytoplankton?
The Milankovitch cycles.
The Milankovitch cycles change Earthās temperature. Colder temps allow the oceans to absorb more CO2, so atmospheric CO2 goes down. When the Milankovitch cycles warm the oceans they release CO2 and amplify the effects of the initial warming. Thatās why temperature and CO2 are in lock step with one another. Notice how ice ages and interglacials come in predictable cycles. This is due to the clock-like ticking of the Milankovitch cycles.
Oh I see. So your claim is that these cycles are just a matter of the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO2 in water.
Hmmmā¦ I do remember reading that unless the carbon in dead organisms is trapped in sediment, the plankton doesnāt actually remove the carbon from the ecological cycle. Perhaps I have been operating on too simple of a picture/model of how things work.
This is not to concede the argument entirely. I still see more hope in CO2 to O2 conversion that in reducing emissions. Otherwise it would be wise to invest in real estate at higher altitudes ā so much for living out the rest of my days on a tropical beachā¦ heā¦ heā¦
Orā¦ maybe the best idea isnāt reducing emission but balancing out the cycle. i.e. using CO2 to O2 converters to supply the fuel we burn.
What do you think I found when I googled the question ācan plankton be used to make fuel?ā Things like āPlankton could be the key source of biofuel.ā cool.
That is definitely one way to get carbon out of system, but its slow. If you look at the chalk cliffs at Dover thatās gigatons of carbon that was captured and sank to the bottom of the ocean. You also get subduction which melts these sediments and burps them back out in volcanic eruptions. Nonetheless, it isnāt a fast enough process to lock up the amount of carbon we are putting into the air. If this was a fast process then we would see a constant amount of CO2 when we look back at history, and this just isnāt the case.
That only makes sense if we reduce CO2 production to the point where it can be cleared out.
A change in altitude can lead to a change in attitude. 
People have talked about sequestering CO2 through artificial means. However, thatās a bit like having a diet soda with a large pizza and calling it a weight loss plan. Overconsumption of fossil fuels has to be dealt with first.
We are already using plankton as fuel. Thatās what crude oil is made of.
5 Likes
You donāt have the in/out aspect of that metaphor right. It is more like jogging to the pizza place. Whether it works depends on ho much of your fuel you get from the CO2 to O2 converters (how far you jog in the metaphor). 100% would mean no net gain in CO2.
You mean it is not made of dinosaurs? LOL Of course the point is that we donāt want to put all that carbon stored in fossil fuels back into the atmosphere.
How would stratospheric ozone stop the accelerating accumulation of green house gasses? Including tropospheric ozone?
Sorry to jump in here but I just saw a report that phytoplankton were flourishing with the higher CO2 and ocean temperatures. Certainly this biological factors is related to ocean C02 content but
I think that most Ocean CO2 absorption and release is related to temperature. We must remember that net C02 is released when the oceans warm actually increasing CO2. This is why generally speaking CO2 increases have lagged temperature increases in the geologic record.
Also this like everything is way more complicated then we could ever present here with many variable factors. For example You have to consider also that insoluble carbonates form at higher water temperatures creating all that limestone.
1 Like
Certainly I would expect higher CO2 to result in more phytoplankton. But apparently most species of phytoplankton we have at the moment concentrate at the poles where there are lower temperature. If the higher temperatures donāt negatively affect those concentrations that would be good news. We seem to have conflicting information on that front and need further investigation. However we do know that UV radiation coming through those holes in the ozone layer are reducing the effectiveness of that phytoplankton in converting CO2 to O2.
Ahā¦ low iron concentrations seem to be limiting factor in plankton growth in much of the ocean.
Yes that would be the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO2 in water which is apparently driving a 100,000 year cycle in the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which @T_aquaticus has been explaining to me called the Milankovitch cycles.
So that would be another carbon sink at higher temperatures? Does the volume and time scale make this significant to our global warming question? Or is this just a detail when making calculations?
Mitchell. This is all very complex really suggest that you check out suspiciousobservers.org they cover this and more each day. They report a broad array of scientific papers related to climate, geology , cosmology and other science. You might just be amazed at the science out there.
I laugh when someone says the science is settled. Thatās a joke.
Watching the āclimate forcingā video, I wasnāt terribly impressed. Too much repetition made this sound more like rhetoric than science and I got tired of watching. Doesnāt change manās measurably significant contribution to the change in CO2 concentrations. The challenge to whether this is really responsible for temperature increase may be valid. I have always been skeptical about that.
They push plasma cosmology and electric universe stuff. That instantly discredits anything else they say.
1 Like
Thanks for looking Mitchell. They are always referencing current scientific papers. I donāt agree with everything they say but suggest you watch their daily spaceweather news videos. They always have a broad range of science reports. I think that we all know the planet climate is changing and CO2 is involved itās just that climate is very complicated with other factors. The upcoming Ipcc cmip6 model will includes solar forcing which makes the model more sensitive reflecting variations in solar activity effects. Energy from the Sun during solar cycles and the type of energy vary significantly which has effects on the earths climate. There is solar activity also effects on the earths magnetic field and also geology and even has health effects. So itās complicated much more than some will have you believe. They only reference scientific papers. I think we all know that we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and develop a more sustainable life style and sustainable energy.
Also many scientist believe that the sun is going into a grand solar minimum and along with earths magnetic field s weakening and the South Atlantic anamoly is growing and splitting indicating we are going into a magnetic pole excursion (movement and weakening) or a complete pole flip. This can have disasterous effects especially on our electric grids and technology which we are so dependent. This is happening quickly and Would have diaasterous consequences.
Whereās the dark matter? I donāt know about everything they promote but suggest you watch the space weather news. You might learn something.
That is what we call distraction. Plasma cosmology and electric universe crackpottery is really, really, really bad science. Anyone pushing it has no interest in either science or the truth and they discredit anything else they say by pushing itā¦
1 Like
They only are referencing scientific papers.
Show me the dark matter? Thatās the ruse.