thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, Strange said: Do you have any evidence that sodium chloride reacts with CO2, because I am pretty sure it doesn't. It is up to you as the inventor of this amazing idea to explain how salt combines with CO2, what this produces and how that solves global warming. Please provide a reference that these can be combined to produce a carbonate. Even if they could be forced to react somehow, the reaction would release large quantities of chlorine, which is an extremely toxic gas. Killing all the undersea life in the vicinity. The attachment contains a print screen from google when queried the following statement "What happens when you pass CO2 into seawater" I hope you are satisfied
Eise Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, Strange said: Do you have any evidence that sodium chloride reacts with CO2, because I am pretty sure it doesn't. Exactly. Both Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 dissolve very good in water, as does NaCl. So all ions will stay in solution in the water, however the H+-ions introduced by the CO2 solution in water will contribute to the acidification (is that English?) of the sea. So it is really a bad idea. 1
DrP Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, Eise said: acidification (is that English?) Sounds about right.
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: The attachment contains a print screen from google when queried the following statement "What happens when you pass CO2 into seawater" I hope you are satisfied Exactly where does that say anything about NaCl? The buffering ability of the oceans is limited and the fact that atmospheric levels of CO2 are already lowering the seas ability to buffer is troubling to say the least. Why would you want to make that worse? Edited June 18, 2019 by Moontanman 1
DrP Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 1 minute ago, thethinkertank said: The attachment contains a print screen from google when queried the following statement "What happens when you pass CO2 into seawater" I hope you are satisfied So nothing about it reacting with salt then - just dissolving in water. Did I miss the bit about the salt somewhere? 1
Eise Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: You see that word 'carbonic acid', don't you? You want to dissolve all shellfish. You know, their shells are made amongst others by CaCO3, which is bad solvable in water, however it reacts with acids, and will (partially) dissolve. 22 minutes ago, DrP said: Sounds about right. Wow. I am already able to correctly construct English words. A milestone. Edited June 18, 2019 by Eise
Strange Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: The attachment contains a print screen from google when queried the following statement "What happens when you pass CO2 into seawater" I hope you are satisfied That says nothing about CO2 reacting with salt. So, no.
thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 OK, so it wasnt NaCl, that was a mistake. It is however sea water. Yikes, messed up there. I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons as every idea is bound to have, and the balance sheet shows the idea deserves a chance.
Eise Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 1 minute ago, thethinkertank said: OK, so it wasnt NaCl, that was a mistake. It is however sea water. Yikes, messed up there. I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons as every idea is bound to have, and the balance sheet shows the idea deserves a chance. Show this balance.
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: OK, so it wasnt NaCl, that was a mistake. It is however sea water. Yikes, messed up there. I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons as every idea is bound to have, and the balance sheet shows the idea deserves a chance. Se we destroy the oceans ability to host complex life?
thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) Just now, Eise said: Show this balance. There we venture into the realms of morals and ethics and fish rights. Really? I say if we can sacrifice a couple of fishies to save the world from global warming meltdown by all means do it. And while we are talking morals, I might add I believe in reincarnation and those fishies will reincarnate as great human beings such as CERN scientists and even you and me, because of the sacrifice they made in their previous life, but then, that's hardly the question under discussion. Just now, Moontanman said: Se we destroy the oceans ability to host complex life? Let me post that print screen again for your benefit. Notice it says the ocean life utilize those bicarbonates in (organic processes) such as the construction of calcium carbonate shells? Now thats a good thing. Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank
DrP Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 1 minute ago, thethinkertank said: I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons Pros: Reduces CO2 output globally by about *5% (* - figure pulled from somewhere dark and unpleasant) Cons: Acidifies the oceans making them uninhabitable for wildlife. The killing of the marine life will probably be a bigger catastrophe than the CO2 levels rising. 1
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, thethinkertank said: There we venture into the realms of morals and ethics and fish rights. Really? I say if we can sacrifice a couple of fishies to save the world from global warming meltdown by all means do it. And while we are talking morals, I might add I believe in reincarnation and those fishies will reincarnate as great human beings such as CERN scientists and even you and me, because of the sacrifice they made in their previous life, but then, that's hardly the question under discussion. You do realise that those fishes are a major source of food on this planet for humans.. right? You do realise that if the ocean does drop significantly in it's pH it will not be able to absorb CO2 and will eventually become a source of CO2... right? You do realise that dropping the pH of the oceans would result in the proliferation of dangerous and highly poisonous microbes that release, among other things nerve toxins into the water and into the air... right? So you want to play god with the earth's ecosystem by killing the oceans?
thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, DrP said: Pros: Reduces CO2 output globally by about *5% (* - figure pulled from somewhere dark and unpleasant) Cons: Acidifies the oceans making them uninhabitable for wildlife. The killing of the marine life will probably be a bigger catastrophe than the CO2 levels rising. I must admit you perplex me there. Only 5% is not a very encouraging statistic, even if the horrible drawback didnt exist.....hmmm ill think of some way to go around that obstacle.
Eise Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: Notice it says the ocean life utilize those bicarbonates in (organic processes) such as the construction of calcium carbonate shells? That does not work anymore when the oceans get too acidic. Learn chemistry and nautal biology, before you spout the nonsense you do here. 1 minute ago, thethinkertank said: Only 5% is not a very encouraging statistic, even if the horrible drawback didnt exist.....hmmm ill think of some way to go around that obstacle. No, no, don't think. Start learning. 1
thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, Eise said: That does not work anymore when the oceans get too acidic. Learn chemistry and nautal biology, before you spout the nonsense you do here. No, no, don't think. Start learning. ok. Good advice.
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: There we venture into the realms of morals and ethics and fish rights. Really? I say if we can sacrifice a couple of fishies to save the world from global warming meltdown by all means do it. And while we are talking morals, I might add I believe in reincarnation and those fishies will reincarnate as great human beings such as CERN scientists and even you and me, because of the sacrifice they made in their previous life, but then, that's hardly the question under discussion. Let me post that print screen again for your benefit. Before you do anything for my benefit please make sure you buy a few clues... 10 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: Notice it says the ocean life utilize those bicarbonates in (organic processes) such as the construction of calcium carbonate shells? Not if the oceans become acidic, that is the point of much of this. The lower the pH the more difficult it is for life to use bicarbonates in organic processes. 10 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: Now thats a good thing. Only in your mind...
thethinkertank Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 Just now, Moontanman said: Before you do anything for my benefit please make sure you buy a few clues... Not if the oceans become acidic, that is the point of much of this. The lower the pH the more difficult it is for life to use bicarbonates in organic processes. Only in your mind... But surely the ratio of ocean water to the amount of sealife is at least a billion trillion trillion to one!? So for every drop of water being acidified, a million sea life forms would have bicarboanted, and how many drops of ocean are there in the ocean?
Moontanman Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, thethinkertank said: But surely the ratio of ocean water to the amount of sealife is at least a billion trillion trillion to one!? So for every drop of water being acidified, a million sea life forms would have bicarboanted, and how many drops of ocean are there in the ocean? Doesn't work like that, the pH rises or falls as a whole or very nearly so, it's not separated out into drops and as the pH falls the ability of sea life to "bicarbonate" drops. Actually it's worse than that sea life is quite capable to using bicarbonates faster than they are available in closed areas resulting in extreme pH swings. The bicarbonates are a very tiny part of the ocean but immensely important. Calcium, and to a lesser extent magnesium, are what carbonates are made of and the process of forming carbonates can run either direction. Sequestering CO2 in carbonates is not permanent and depends on the pH staying high. Lower the pH and CO2 can be released back into the water and or atmosphere... And stop calling me shirley... Edited June 18, 2019 by Moontanman Humor 1
Strange Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, thethinkertank said: But surely the ratio of ocean water to the amount of sealife is at least a billion trillion trillion to one!? That is not a meaningful ratio. If the water is too acid (or full of chlorine) it is still harmful to life. And instead of guessing stupid numbers like "a billion trillion trillion to one" why not find out something about the subject. 1
John Cuthber Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 "Well, I emailed CERN" Try this; you might get a better response. http://www.claus.com/postoffice/tosanta.php 5 hours ago, thethinkertank said: I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons as every idea is bound to have, and the balance sheet shows the idea deserves a chance. One (among many) concerns with CO2 production from fossil fuels is the damage being done when it dissolves in sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification So saying " I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway" suggests that you are an idiot or a maniac. Which is it? 2
thethinkertank Posted June 19, 2019 Author Posted June 19, 2019 Hi there, site. Thanks for your invigorating discussionary contribution to my pet idea on 'undersea CO2 emissions and reducing global warming'. I gleaned the following valuable points following that discussion. Rising pH levels due to CO2 emissions underwater and the consequent fishlife eradication. I will try to work on this and get back with a revised theory. In the meantime if anybody does come up with a way to overcome that obstacle, please let us know. Again, thanking scientists on this site for inspiration on 'Undersea Emmisions.
zapatos Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 I think at some point we need to entertain the idea that we are being trolled by a professional.
thethinkertank Posted June 19, 2019 Author Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) Just now, zapatos said: I think at some point we need to entertain the idea that we are being trolled by a professional. trolling? If you conscientously perused my journey from lepton through quark to inglorious meson you will have availed yourself of the disposition of the pitfalls and perils that besought me at every corner and the steps I took to overcome them. Here are the pitfalls and solutions in that order 1.Ignorance: I endeavoured to enknowedgeanize my self 2.Unfounded theories: I stopped posting them after the CERN thread. Trolling was as far from my aims as the sun is from the earth (relatively speaking) Now, if you mean my last post, I was hinting at the fact that I did gain a lot of relevant info on what avenues I ought to be pursuiing in the construe of a perfect solution for global warming as per my undersea emission idea. There are the objections to that theory no doubt but I can now concentrate my research on those alone. i.e rising pH levels in seawater, the cheif objection to my idea. All these gleaned through my discussion here. Edited June 19, 2019 by thethinkertank
Moontanman Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, zapatos said: I think at some point we need to entertain the idea that we are being trolled by a professional. I have to agree, no one has an ego that large that isn't in politics...
Recommended Posts