Joshua

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joshua says: April 30, 2017 at 1:39 pm
=={ The odds of it happening once are 100%.}==
What? The odds of a 1,000 year rain happening one in the last few years in the UK is 100%?”
The odds of it happening per year in the preceding 1000 years are 0.1% per year.
Once it happens, in any year, the odds of it happening in that year are 100%.
?? Had to happen? Why did a 1,000 year rain have to happen [a second time] over any given period of 1,000 years?
Again the odds of a second event in the next 1000 years were 0.1% per year, and yes it did happen again so 100%.
A little read of the Hitchhikers Guide Infinity drive explains this paradox.
While the chances are remote they will happen at some stage given enough time. The point is the circumstances actually did happen thus that particular probability is now 1 [100%].

“Bear in mind, you are dealing with to someone whose knowledge of statistics is extremely limited, but I’m hoping you could provide a simple explanation your thinking.”
I doubt that your knowledge of statistics is limited given your interest in the topic of CC over this number of years. Statistics is funny stuff and is often misused by both sides when it should not be.

See Willard’s excellent summation April 30, 2017 at 2:42 pm
“”Doc’s point is that there’s a reading whereby attribution is trivial. Split the Earth in an infinity of regions and ask: what are the odds that a unique future event happens in one of its regions by luck. The probability that the unique event eventually happens converges toward 100%.The chances it happens at a specific spot and not elsewhere is almost 0%.”
However he called it a trick, when the trick is the reverse, ascribing random rare events to causation, see Taleb “Fooled by Randomness”

CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes, 1st Edition Zeebe   &    Wolf-Gladrow   have some wonderful stuff on our topic though hard to copy and paste.
It backs up ATTP and his presentation of equations.
The money line is page 41  1.2.4  total alkalinity and charge balance
“Sillen [1961] argued that considering the origin of the ocean, we might say that the ocean is the result of a gigantic acid base titration in which acids that have leached out from the interior of the earth are titrated with bases that have formed from the weathering of primary rock ”

That is the essence of what I have been saying.
In an authoritative text book.

Side tracking  on permeability of sediments [undefined] and stating that the seafloor is covered with impermeable clay flies in the face of Broecker  “The high-CaCO3 sediments that drape the oceans’ ridges and plateaus typically have ?90% CaCO3 and a water-free density of 1 g cm?3.”
The  amount of CaCO3 available for dissolution in such a sediment is 72 g cm?2.
This amount could neutralize 6.3×1017 mol of fossil fuel CO2. This amount exceeds the combined oceanic inventory of dissolved CO2? (1.6×1017 mol) and of dissolved VHBO3? (0.8×1017 mol). It is comparable to the amount of recoverable fossil fuel carbon.”
In other words the first 8cm or so of the available usable sediment
is not covered by impermeable clay, it is usable now.
It has the capacity to soak up 4 times the amount of CO2 already present in the ocean as DIC without blinking.
Only then would it be used up under an impermeable blanket as Dikran puts it.
It would be available to soak up all the fossil fuel that can theoretically be discovered.
And we still would not have an acid sea of consequence for the carbonic acid itself in equilibrium with the available CaCO3 is the buffer of the sea.”We may be on the same page at times.
Dikran Marsupial says:    November 8, 2016 at 10:23 am
” Now I am not claiming that there is no transfer of CaCO3 from the ocean floor to the deep ocean,” but my understanding is that there isn’t very much. BTW note that sedimentary rocks such as limestone tend not to form in the deep ocean because of the dissolution process that Marco mentions, so it isn’t clear that there is an abundence of CaCO3 in the rocks forming the ocean floor to begin with (I suspect the Atlantic ocean floor is mostly baslt, i.e. silicate rock).

So what is your evidence for an unlimited supply of CaCO3 from the ocean floor?
Oh, BTW, thanks for putting up the second and third pictures. Your computer skills are way above mine. The second one shows the calcareous ooze right on top of the mid ocean ridges and further out under the red clay.

Confirming my point “There are bucket loads of carbonate in the earth’s crust, every subsurface volcanic eruption exposes more to the ocean” despite your assertion to the contrary.
Dikran Marsupial says:    November 9, 2016 at 9:56 am    “. I don’t think this is necessarily correct.”

You also said, incorrectly.
“the reason that land based volcanoes give off a lot of CO2 is because they are largely erupting magma formed from subducted crust from shallower oceans that has carbonate sediments.”

The magma is the same, molten basalt under the sea and on land.
Any component of “subducted crust from shallower oceans that has carbonate sediments” can only be present in the ocean ridge volcanoes under the sea. That is where the subduction takes place.Subducted crust is melted,gone, not crust no more.
Land based volcanoes give off extra CO2 because  the magma passes through ordinary crust with layers of chalk limestone marble etc, carbonate sediments from 2 billion years of non subducted crust formation of sediments from shallower oceans.

Finally, you state
“this one states that calcereous oozes are scarce below 5000m (i.e. below the CCD),”
the statement should read but doesn’t “recent calcareous oozes” as in the next sentence
[wonder why Dikran didn’t mention that one]  it says ancient calcareous oozes at greater depths if moved by sea floor spreading.
By the picture accompanying these calcereous oozes are abundant not scarce you would agree.
The term scarce applies to CaCO3 deposits on the red clay surface below the CCD
.””That said: I think the hard part isn’t learning d(x^2)/dx = 2x which kids can memorize just as easily as A=?r2. It’s understanding “slope” = “rate” and understanding what to do with rates etc.””   Lucia Maths and need to get a book written

Plot trinity James one of 3 in the 5 series plot involves death in a plane but only being a computer simulation write whole novel then unpin/save heroine at end.

dikranmarsupial
“Also the mud in the abyssal ocean has no carbonates because it is below the CCD,”

Mud in the abyssal ocean with no carbonates.
because it is below the CCD.

Chemistry and knowledge and assertion.
“Mollusks from many different groups live in the deep sea. Our shell-makers can be found at all depth levels of the ocean bottom; no limit is known on the depths at which they can live. Mollusks have been found in the deepest point of all oceans, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, at 11,022 m (about 36,000 feet) depth”
I presume the 11,022 is well below the CCD.
I presume the molluscs have shells.
Therefore your contention that the CCD is the last word on the chemistry is wrong.
I point out to you the white cliffs of Dover Possibly thousands of meters deep CaCO3.
I point out sea shells in the highest Himalayas just to remind both of us of the vast, interminable  aeons that the earths crust has been forming and deforming.
The earths crust, even under the sea, is not just some miserable thin layer deposited in the last 10,000 years.
It is a vast amalgam of CaCo3 deposited over 2 billion years, crushed, serpentined, vapourised frozen, glaciated, vented, heated and pressured into all sorts of minerals and deposits.
It is intermixed with less important stuff for our argument like basalt etc which occur in bigger percentages at greater depths.
The sea sits on the crust. It has input from the earth’s crust not just from the bottom but from every drib and drab where water comes into contact with land as it drains back into the oceans. Wind blows dust particles, some of them CaCo3 into the sea. The volcanic ocean floor rips up this buried crust and periodically exposes great swathes of billion year old CaCO3 to the ravages of the abyssal deep waters [despite the mud layer].
Vast undersea rivers carry silt and debris down to the abyssal depths daily. Bacteria and worms live in the silt and mud, yes even at those depths and burrow and break their way through it exposing rich veins of CaCO3 to the water.
It might look quiet in a nautilus for a week but over a decade the floor is a vibrant freeway of activity, not a quilted protective blanket of CaCO3 less mud.

The salient points surely are the supersaturated CaCO3 and pH of 8.1 of the whole ocean overall. How did it get that way?
The Ca part of the mix did not form from the CO2\H2O acid pathway.
It is there because the ocean sits in and on a pitcher of earth which has a CaCo3 matrix which has formed over billions of years,
The ocean is alkaline because of the dissolved earth chemicals in it and available to it at this particular temperature, earth size and water volume. They cannot dissolve out and leave us with pure water which would be acidic with the level of CO2 in the air.
The dissolved salts and CaCO3 are innumerably more abundant and available in the earths crust than all the CO2 that nature and Humanity can produce. The balance is robust, not delicate and is much more a feature of how much CO2 [DIC] is present in water due to the CaCO3  putting it into the atmosphere or stopping it from being absorbed into the sea than a simple current small oversupply.

I am not arguing AGW, or being obstreperous, I am trying to understand the pH conundrum better.
Some of these ideas must make sense

angech says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.”
Not Surprising is it.

How many theology texts would repudiate the existence of god?
How many authors actually wrote peer reviewed articles on global cooling?
How many authors wrote climate papers with no consideration of either point of view?

“The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles.
More impressive is that the number 160 out of 238 That is over 67% against compared to 0.01% of publishing consensus scientists. so 670,000 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles.
Presume the maths is right?

print

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *