SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (51033)5/10/2014 2:29:01 PM
From: Land Shark  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
They keep repeating the same nonsense. I recall him making the same argument about pH 7 being the limit for being "acidic". Disingenuous.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (51033)5/11/2014 5:11:28 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
Wow.. I present you with an argument regarding phytoplankton and you launch into a irrelevant discussion of the human anatomy?

Is you ability to properly respond to an issue of discussion so lacking that you'll do anything to avoid addressing it?

Normal, and neutral, are different standards. The current PH scale that is almost universally accepted in modern science says that PH7 equates to the neutral point. What is NORMAL for various life forms varies greatly. Some life forms have adapted to highly alkaline, or highly acid, conditions. Which is my entire point. I'm telling you that phytoplankton can, AND HAVE, adapted to various PH conditions.

They have no choice because of the EXISTING PH variations that NATURALLY occur in the oceans.

But the oceans REMAIN everywhere on the alkaline side of the PH scale. And considering that PH is measure in powers of 10 (logarithmic), it's going to require a major shift to cause the oceans to decrease their average PH below 7 (which is considered neutral PH).

Now if you think you're qualified to totally re-write the science of measuring PH levels, then have at it.

And look at all the things that we consume that are far more acid than our own blood.. Do they kill us? Or are some of them (citrus, tomatoes.. etc) actually considered very healthy for sustaining our existence?

I'm going to give you a separate response, in hopes that you will re-focus on the issue at hand.




To: Wharf Rat who wrote (51033)5/11/2014 5:25:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Maurice Winn
teevee

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
WR,

You and others assert that Iron has little relevance to Carbon sequestration. That it will cost too much for too little gain.. That it's presence doesn't make as much of a difference as ocean acidification..

Question.. Have you heard of, and studied, the Redfield Ratio?

C:N:P = 106:16:1

That equates to 106 carbon atoms can be sequestered by 16 atoms of Nitrogen and 1 atom of Phosphorus.

Redfield discovered the remarkable congruence between the chemistry of the deep ocean and the chemistry of living things such as phytoplankton in the surface ocean. Both have N:P ratios of about 16:1 in terms of atoms. When nutrients are not limiting, the molar elemental ratio C:N:P in most phytoplankton is 106:16:1. Redfield thought it wasn't purely coincidental that the vast oceans would have a chemistry perfectly suited to the requirements of living organisms.
en.wikipedia.org

Here's a good explanation of the impact that the Redfield Ratio has on phytoplankton, now that Iron's importance to the Redfield Ratio has been discovered (thanks to Dr. John Martin and others)

About 70% of the world's surface is covered in oceans, and the upper part of these (where light can penetrate) is inhabited by algae. In some oceans, the growth and reproduction of these algae is limited by the amount of iron in the seawater. Iron is a vital micronutrient for phytoplankton growth and photosynthesis that has historically been delivered to the pelagic seaby dust storms from arid lands. This Aeolian dust contains 3–5% iron and its deposition has fallen nearly 25% in recent decades. [33]

The Redfield ratio describes the relative atomic concentrations of critical nutrients in plankton biomass and is conventionally written "106 C: 16 N: 1 P." This expresses the fact that one atom of phosphorus and 16 of nitrogen are required to " fix" 106 carbon atoms (or 106 molecules of CO
2
). Recent research has expanded this constant to "106 C: 16 N: 1 P: .001 Fe" signifying that in iron deficient conditions each atom of iron can fix 106,000 atoms of carbon, [34] or on a mass basis, each kilogram of iron can fix 83,000 kg of carbon dioxide. The 2004 EIFEX experiment reported a carbon dioxide to iron export ratio of nearly 3000 to 1. The atomic ratio would be approximately: "3000 C: 58,000 N: 3,600 P: 1 Fe". [35]


en.wikipedia.org

One atom of Iron, when combined with the other elements of that ratio, will sequester 106,000 Carbon atoms.

One ton of Iron leads to the sequestration of 83,000 tons of Carbon.


That's one hell of an impact. And since it leads to a massive increase in phytoplankton growth, it's a hell of an impact on the marine food chain, and all of the marine life (including corals) that depend upon it.

Hawk