Bush Administration Wants To Add CO2 To Oceans

[usafresq1]

ahh ok, the only reason I mentioned the off topic post is b/c the disscussion from a few seemed to be getting pretty political and less reef aquarium centerd. I'v never heard of C02 in the salt water tank could someone shoot me a PM with the link or some info about why its done and what benefits come from it?

~Kevin

 

[Fatal Morgana]

CO2 is often used in calcium reactor to acidify the seawater so that calcium carbonate (aragonite/limestone/shell) can be dissolved. The calcium-enriched seawater is then dump back into the tank to increase the calcium and carbonate concentration in the tank.

 

[Kalkbreath]

But, Co2 has also been placed in the Ocean in controlled Scientific studies to increase the Plankton count in the water, thus increasing the amount of food for zooplankton and then high food chain species........The adding of Co2 in these experiments always seemed to have a healthy effect . 8O

 

[Fatal Morgana]

CO2 concentration in the atomsphere has increase 2X due to anthrotropic activity such as burning of fossil fuels. There is no need to add any more to the ocean than we are doing indirectly, IMO.

 

[Kalkbreath]

But not quickly enough.........The ocean contains more than 98% of the global resevoir of mobile carbon...Thus changes in the physical and/or biological setup of the ocean were probably the main causes for observed glacial-interglacial changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere...It is changes in total nutrients in the ocean (nutrient inventories) or changes in the efficiency with which marine production uses available nutrients (Redfield ratios, new production at high latitudes) that have the largest relative effect on atmospheric CO2 levels via the action of the marine biosphere.? and, regarding his ocean modelling work, ?the assumption being that the deep interior is as yet relatively unaffected by the anthropogenic perturbations.?(Shaffer, 1993)
The records of the CO2 rise and the rise in fossil fuel emission, how closely do they match? It presents a surprisingly poor correlation. Prior to 1800, CO2 levels in the Earth?s atmosphere had stabilized at approximately 280 ppm for a period of at least 10,000 years. The current increase began at the turn of the nineteenth century, 60 years before the beginning of the industrial revolution (1860), in fact a substantial rise was recorded well before that time.Commercial fishing* is one human activity that flourished between 1800 and 1860, and our understanding of the workings of natural systems now allows us to realize that this extraction of sea life had the potential to cause a rising trend in atmospheric CO2.

 

[Rikko]

Just watched 'The Day After Tomorrow' last night. I have to say that everyone participating in this thread should... not watch this piece of crap.
I wasted my life.
I spent the better part of 2 hours thinking about this thread when I wasn't loudly complaining about the inane dialogue... Or CGI wolves, for god's sake.

 

[Anonymous]

But, Co2 has also been placed in the Ocean in controlled Scientific studies to increase the Plankton count in the water, thus increasing the amount of food for zooplankton and then high food chain species........The adding of Co2 in these experiments always seemed to have a healthy effect . 8O

I was thinking the same thing. Currently, the oceans process more CO2 into O2 than all the rainforrests and all the land plants combines. All those little phytoplankton are doing a great job. The limiting factor is CO2, not light and certainly not water. Therefore, wouldn't it be much more efficient to pump CO2 into the ocean than it would to let it go straight into the atmosphere?

The idea that the CO2 will eventually reach the atmosphere is sound, but only a percentage of it will get out of the ocean before phytoplankton convert it to oxygen and organic material.

 

[Anonymous]

The records of the CO2 rise and the rise in fossil fuel emission, how closely do they match? It presents a surprisingly poor correlation. Prior to 1800, CO2 levels in the Earth?s atmosphere had stabilized at approximately 280 ppm for a period of at least 10,000 years.

Try to keep up. Just this year an article was published that found that half of the anthropogenic CO2 had becomed dissolved in seawater and thus part of the seawater carbonate system. This is the most significant reason for the "poor" correlation. Which, in fact, is not actually all that poor. Although the concentrations (what we've added versus what the concentration is) do differ, they both show a steady linear increase.

 

[Kalkbreath]

The records of the CO2 rise and the rise in fossil fuel emission, how closely do they match? It presents a surprisingly poor correlation. Prior to 1800, CO2 levels in the Earth?s atmosphere had stabilized at approximately 280 ppm for a period of at least 10,000 years.

Try to keep up. Just this year an article was published that found that half of the anthropogenic CO2 had becomed dissolved in seawater and thus part of the seawater carbonate system. This is the most significant reason for the "poor" correlation. Which, in fact, is not actually all that poor. Although the concentrations (what we've added versus what the concentration is) do differ, they both show a steady linear increase.

Yes, but many years before man began burning fuels. The oceans have not increased in Co2 levels Only the surface waters] Plankton levels are at an all time low .......the Oceans need more Co2. Cutting down old growth timber does not increase Co2 levels[only burning them does].......paper in land fills and lumber in buildings are Co2 sinks. The new Trees that regrow in the place of old growth forrests take up Co2 at a greater level the the old growth trees did {new young trees grow at a greater rate} Mankind has been taking too much Co2 out of the Oceans .And keep in mind that" just this year an article was published" on a variety of subjects that totally contradict themselves ........Only ONE can be correct, and its possible that none of the articles are correct. :wink:

 

[John_Brandt]

ahh ok, the only reason I mentioned the off topic post is b/c the disscussion from a few seemed to be getting pretty political and less reef aquarium centerd. I'v never heard of C02 in the salt water tank could someone shoot me a PM with the link or some info about why its done and what benefits come from it?

In the late 80's and early 90's some marine aquarists were bubbling CO2 into their tank water by means of CO2 reactors. Imagine an incomplete calcium reactor that after the bubble chamber returned the water to the aquarium. These were automatically controlled by a pH controller set to shut the CO2 valve at a predetermined pH minimum value. The CO2 would drive the pH downwards by the production of carbonic acid. The purpose was to drive and accelerate photosynthesis. These seem to have fallen out of vogue and I don't know to what extent they are still being used. It was European reef technology exported to America, as was so much going on in the earlier years of the development of the hobby here.

I posted the article here to incite discussions in whatever direction they would take. I knew it had aquaristic and political potentials. That only made it more special. Discussion is often more valuable than a singular rebuttal. It's doing what I expected and wanted it to do in this forum.

 

[shr00m]

the intentions were good, debate is always good... i just feel we already do enough to the ocean and it may be better to not intentionally try to turn the ocean into our aquariums... it sure would suck if it crashed...