Unfortunately any changes are already too late. Much of what we see is a result of atmospheric changes that will continue to influence for many decades and even longer be absorbed by our oceans. When the added effect of temperature variation and climate shift are taken into account it will likely be centuries before equilibrium is reached even if we stopped everything we do today.
It's certainly not the first time humanity has messed with the ocean, that was precisely what happened during the 1300s in Europe. Since populations were booming, the fishing industry expanded massively, causing a collapse in population of edible fish species. Meanwhile, the opening of the Suez canal has caused many organisms from the Indian Ocean to invade the Mediterranean, this has caused the Lessepsian migration, which is currently meaning that fish species in the Mediterranean are under major threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessepsian_migration
Plants are our ally........ Large scale desalination of ocean water can help us produce a lot more plants......(especially edible ones)! Global Warming http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm Dr. Chaim H. Tejman:
Is it possible that desalination plants for purifying water may provide a solution to this? Humanity desperately needs to create water sequestration programs. Both for human and agricultural use. The solution therefore would be to salinate the Ocean by extracting Freshwater from it and sequestering it in aquifers or biomass on Land.
I lost all respect for you when I saw you say "ChemEngineer" had an "exceptionally good reply" to this topic. ChemEngineer is a fake Chemical Engineer, probably a first year or 2nd year Chem major in a College somewhere. He denies Ocean acidification is even happening, he denies CO2 is man made (despite isotopic evidence). And shows a general lack of knowledge of basic Chemical concepts. To promote him in anyway reduces you to nothing in my eyes.
Normally Democrats fiercely object to this solution. But as I see this, vast quantities of water removed from the ocean and processed into pure water can work. The power source ought to be nuclear. Nuclear works well anyplace. We use it to power ships for instance.
From Woods Hole A problem for the Democrats is the words they use. The OCEAN per Woods Hole will NEVER become an acid. So why use that term? https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83380&tid=3622&cid=131410
I don't know why Democrats would disapprove of "desalination" it's the next obvious step for human sustainability.
Those of us that studied science understand density. Air has a density. Carbon Dioxide has a density. But check each out. Notice the heaver gas. Then explain our fear of Carbon Dioxide given it sinks? Now the heavier Carbon Dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Chemical_and_physical_properties
Excellent question..... if CO2 sinks then it would surely eventually go below the altitude where it would be a really good insulator???! - - - Updated - - - But in some areas such as around the Dead Sea.... The Sahara Solar Breeder Project and The Sahara Solar Forest Project indicate that we could soon use solar energy for the bulk of the desalination that must be done.
It has been many years since I studied chemistry in college. But I do understand density of air. We calculate that in flying airplanes. We have a term called density altitude. I simply looked up the density of Carbon Dioxide and air and realized since CO2 sinks, the fear of it in the upper reaches of Earth atmosphere is reason to not fear it that high. I long wondered why so little Carbon Dioxide got to such high altitudes. But it clearly is great for plant life. A good solution to reduction of Carbon dioxide is massive planting of plants with green leaves.
I read one article where Gov. Moonbeam is supposedly pro desalination. But he seems very tepid to me. He is wild about some super train. And wild to create rules. But short of involving the state of CA in some great desalination plans. Were it me, I would stop the rail road and get to work on water projects. CA is not out of the woods. We have improved tax revenues but this state still has massive debt.
In a form of PC gone wild, you're trying to redefine common scientific terms according to what your politics say they should be. "Acidification" has always been the term used for a decrease in pH. It doesn't matter what the final pH is. If it lowers the pH, then the process is acidification. If you disagree, please explain for us why the medical condition of "acidosis" occurs when blood pH falls below 7.35, which is still "alkaline". Chemists won't use pH 7.0 as some magic line. 7.0 is only of interest in one limited case, that involving pure water and nothing but acid/base interactions. Once you have buffering agents in the mix, as seawater does, 7.0 becomes meaningless.
Great post....... I need this for another discussion on a related topic...... I personally know of two similar cases of something like this happening here in Atlantic Canada in the '70's or '80's..... one near Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and the other case near Moncton , N. B.
Claims of a special carburettor have been around since i was a child. Always the car gets astonishing mpg. Folks, this is a easy to prove urban legend. I am 78, When we were teens, we too told of some magical Buick or Ford, etc and it had this magic carburettor. It takes a particular amount of energy to move objects. Cars are no different. The modern high milage cars have fuel injectors. They have to inject the fuel to meet the correct fuel to air ration which is about 15.1 to one. 1 part fuel to 15 parts air. They are getting more fuel economy today due to the accuracy of the fuel injection. With the carburettor, it has a pump inside it. When you accelerate, the carburettor sprays a very rich in fuel mixture. This keeps the car from lagging. Fuel injections are putting the fuel inside the combustion chamber. Carburettors spray fuel into a hollow structure below the carburettor called the intake manifold. Weight is the enemy of good fuel economy. The cars if you notice are a lot smaller. By the magic of the Government, it does not measure just the larger heavy cars, it mixes all cars up. Thus if you own one that gets 50 mpg, it is tucked into a group getting 15 mpg. Cars also waste fuel idling. Each stop you make forces you to use the extra fuel you get when you start to move the car. To date, and this same story has been around since at least the 1940s, when i first heard it, to date. The problem is you can't defy laws of energy. You make cars a lot lighter to get better fuel economy. Think of it like a light bulb. A rather small light bulb can light a closet. But put it into a large gymnasium and you find it less than usable to light properly. A small car has far less weight to move. Thus the better economy. There are vehicles today that stagger your imagination for good fuel economy. Study the vehicle. They are ultra light and for the sole purpose of getting this super high fuel economy. https://www.thestreet.com/story/130...cient-gas-powered-vehicles-ever-produced.html
This system could produce 3,500 gallons of clean water per day, at half the cost of current desalination methods, using just the motion of the waves to power the Reverse Osmosis process. http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tec...r-saros-wave-powered-desalination-system.html
Can you imagine how many would be in the ocean next to Los Angeles just to supply them with water? That said, provided in Ca permits could be obtained, seems to me to be a good solution for a few homes at least.
No, this forgotten post by me did not try to redefine anything. Chemistry is not politics. Some try to create politics in how they use chemistry, but that is not my aim. I agree with your claims so long as i am left out of them.
Water sequestration may not be just a linear supply chain issue any more. Saw today where my city is starting a project to determine whether or not it is feasible to sequester large quantities of water near the river to stockpile a supply of water that can me made potable in the event the river ever becomes too contaminated by accident/spill to purify.
My friend from Liverpool, Nova Scotia, Canada stated that he knew the guy from Bridgewater who had gotten a brand new Ford LTD.... he drove and drove and drove but the gas gauge didn't move much so he took it in to the dealership to have the gas gauge fixed...... .... the company grabbed his car.... and gave him another model that got terrible mileage just like most LTD's. The guy from Moncton, N. B., Canada also got a Ford but this guy was brighter...... and when the company demanded his car back..... he held out until they paid him five or six million dollars....... I am not a reporter but both of these cases could be researched...... My theory is that the companies put these test models out on purpose to get people talking...... because one of these days.... The President of the USA and his administration could introduce a law that would by pass an application of Patent law...... that is preventing Ford from putting cars like this on the market and blow the foreign competition out of the water........... President Donald Trump seems like just the man to put together a team who could do this...... I am not a reporter but any reporter could research both of these cases.... and fairly easily find the customers who had these experiences back in the 1970's......
Sorry but I don't agree with any of this conspiracy. If we were talking about a few hiding the fact that they have made cold fusion work then I might be interested, however, a carburetor is a pretty simple operation which many people can easily redesign and/or improve if it made sense. Currently the car companies piss and moan about meeting mpg guidelines so if they could magically have 75mpg cars (with appropriate horsepower) it would happen...
