[Chondrally (OP)]

I have carried out a multi-year study on ocean pH and have included all the relevant equations from Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow's book 'CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Isotopes,Kinetics' which contains the solubility product equations for CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 as well as for magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffers.  I have included as much relevant chemistry in the analysis as I can including phosphorus and boron , ,sodium,chlorine and fluorine salts.
The pH equations I used are the SWS scale equations from Brookhaven National Lab which were made public by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace who are scientists there.
I projected the CO2 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere into the future, assuming continuing industrial development and population growth and urbanization and deforestation rates remain constant.  I used the Mauna Kea data set for CO2 ppm, and used a Bayesian Markov Monte Carlo simulation to project CO2 into the future.  With these CO2 levels, I was able to calculate the equilibrium year by year at the surface of the ocean and with the diffusion equations I was able to solve them to depth (1000 feet) using temperature and salinity profiles that are publicly available.
 
This result showed me that the magnesium carbonate buffer would break in the ocean around 2021-2025 over a 2 year period, and both of the following can happen. 
1)  When the buffer breaks,  CO2 will well up from the depths, and the ocean will off-gas CO2 into the atmosphere causing atmospheric heating due to the green house gas, and more extreme weather events with the water cycle worldwide.
2) The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide.  This , along with temperature heating in the ocean, could cause the demise of the krill and phytoplankton populations that have already been decimated since 1950 by 40% due to pollution and temperature changes.
If this happens,  the base of the food chain in the ocean could be at serious risk of collapse and with it ,  all life in the ocean.  This would eventually ripple onto land food chains and might cause a collapse over the entire earth of the ecosystem food chain.  This is a serious probability..
 
I believe both of these effects will happen to greater and lesser degree simultaneously and at different places in the worlds oceans when the ppm reaches 493 ppm approximately around 2021-2025.
I believe a real chemistry experiment needs to be done aswell, just to confirm the simulation is correct, by adding CO2 to seawater at room temperature and pressure in a closed container until the pH changes, and note the concentration of CO2 above the seawater when this happens.  I predict it will be about 493 ppm CO2 for the first pH change when the magnesium carbonate buffer breaks and around 878 ppm CO2 when the second pH catastrophe occurs, and that is when the calcium carbonate buffer breaks in the seawater!

We need to act now with new technology that generates energy without emitting CO2.


I believe an efficient natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2 and is very fuel efficient is possible
Please see the following links for more information:
 
Under Science Forums at TheNakedScientists.com,  in Technology section the question :  Can we build an efficient hybrid natural gas-solar engine that emits no CO2?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461

check out: Can we save the marine life with Ocean Engineering?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754

Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean.  According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen in a LIVING OCEAN in the future!  But it is best to take the side of caution and act now to remove CO2 from the Ocean!

[Tim the Plumber]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

[Bored chemist]

I have carried out a multi-year study on ocean pH and have included all the relevant equations from Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow's book 'CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Isotopes,Kinetics' which contains the solubility product equations for CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 as well as for magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffers.  I have included as much relevant chemistry in the analysis as I can including phosphorus and boron , ,sodium,chlorine and fluorine salts.
The pH equations I used are the SWS scale equations from Brookhaven National Lab which were made public by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace who are scientists there.
I projected the CO2 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere into the future, assuming continuing industrial development and population growth and urbanization and deforestation rates remain constant.  I used the Mauna Kea data set for CO2 ppm, and used a Bayesian Markov Monte Carlo simulation to project CO2 into the future.  With these CO2 levels, I was able to calculate the equilibrium year by year at the surface of the ocean and with the diffusion equations I was able to solve them to depth (1000 feet) using temperature and salinity profiles that are publicly available.
 
This result showed me that the magnesium carbonate buffer would break in the ocean around 2021-2025 over a 2 year period, and both of the following can happen. 
1)  When the buffer breaks,  CO2 will well up from the depths, and the ocean will off-gas CO2 into the atmosphere causing atmospheric heating due to the green house gas, and more extreme weather events with the water cycle worldwide.
2) The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide.  This , along with temperature heating in the ocean, could cause the demise of the krill and phytoplankton populations that have already been decimated since 1950 by 40% due to pollution and temperature changes.
If this happens,  the base of the food chain in the ocean could be at serious risk of collapse and with it ,  all life in the ocean.  This would eventually ripple onto land food chains and might cause a collapse over the entire earth of the ecosystem food chain.  This is a serious probability..
 
I believe both of these effects will happen to greater and lesser degree simultaneously and at different places in the worlds oceans when the ppm reaches 493 ppm approximately around 2021-2025.
I believe a real chemistry experiment needs to be done aswell, just to confirm the simulation is correct, by adding CO2 to seawater at room temperature and pressure in a closed container until the pH changes, and note the concentration of CO2 above the seawater when this happens.  I predict it will be about 493 ppm CO2 for the first pH change when the magnesium carbonate buffer breaks and around 878 ppm CO2 when the second pH catastrophe occurs, and that is when the calcium carbonate buffer breaks in the seawater!

We need to act now with new technology that generates energy without emitting CO2.


I believe an efficient natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2 and is very fuel efficient is possible
Please see the following links for more information:
 
Under Science Forums at TheNakedScientists.com,  in Technology section the question :  Can we build an efficient hybrid natural gas-solar engine that emits no CO2?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60132.msg466461#msg466461

check out: Can we save the marine life with Ocean Engineering?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69577.msg505754#msg505754

Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean.  According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen in a LIVING OCEAN in the future!  But it is best to take the side of caution and act now to remove CO2 from the Ocean!

That  doesn't make a lot of sense.
More CO2 in the air will force more CO2 into solution in the oceans and lower the pH.

A steep rise in ocean temperature might get lots of CO2 out of it, and that's a potential issue- but not on the timescales you are using.

 "The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide. "
Nope. as I said, the ocean's pH is dropping.

Also, buffers don't "break" like that.
The ocean is in equilibrium with a lot of solid calcium carbonate.
It's simplistic to say (as some might) that the pH won't change much until the white cliffs of Dover dissolve- but there's a valid point behind the assertion.

This "Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean.  According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen "
is plainly absurd.
I can predict the outcome of a titration of 50 ml of solution in a lab because I don't know or care what the individual molecules do- I just need to know what the average does.
That actually gets more accurate when big numbers of molecules are involved.

So, if you claim something's going  to happen, you need to "show your working".
At least qualitatively, you would need to show why putting more CO2 in the air won't lead to more (rather than less) CO2 dissolving in the ocean.

[Chondrally (OP)]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

[Chondrally (OP)]

It really is hard to understand the ocean buffer on such a vast scale.  In the shallow water near islands and coral reefs, where heat is trapped, and mixing with the larger ocean is limited and there are small local pools and microenvironments, the pH is dropping because the buffer is saturated.  It has already broken at the higher temperatures.  When temperatures rise, all the kinetic equations behave differently with each other and the outcomes are local and different.  Its the vast buffer out in the deep ocean that i am really talking about.
bored chemist is absolutely right about this:
I can predict the outcome of a titration of 50 ml of solution in a lab because I don't know or care what the individual molecules do- I just need to know what the average does.That actually gets more accurate when big numbers of molecules are involved.
this is really true, however, its much harder to predict a titration in the entire ocean, as there are currents and life.
  As the ocean warms, and it has never paused warming (there has been no hiatus or let up in ocean warming):

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=Cj0KEQiA5IHEBRCLr_PZvq2_6qcBEiQAL4cQ092XNrFDzdlJO0kUxrZQmDQBG4_t0oYPKytqEHwKNnAaAlV58P8HAQ

global warming and continuing global pollution.... which changes the chemistry even more.  There are a lot of unkowns in this chemistry.  However,  out in the vast ocean,  the temperature is relatively stable and so is the chemistry, except for life there.  The life like krill and phytoplankton and algae and fish poop change the absorption rate of CO2 in shallow depths and make it so that it will take longer for the CO2 concentration in the water to pass the atmospheric critical point of 493 ppm.  Even in the great ocean,  there are microenvironments due to circulation and currents and geography underwater especially around islands and trenches.  Mixing is varied.  There is the great plastic dump in the Pacific.all that being said, in general the pH is not dropping much due to the buffering by magnesium carbonate and calcium carbonate and sodium hydrogen-carbonate.  When the buffer is saturated,  or 'breaks' (perhaps breaks isn't the right term, but it makes for good reading by the uninitiated and gets their attention) ,  then the pH can change abruptly like a step function.  I am not talking about the shallow water coral areas that people mostly see,  there it already has happened, but i am talking about all the vast oceans of the world way out there, 71% of the planets surface,  that mostly isn't seen.  When the CO2 ppm passes 493  in the water,  the magnesium carbonate buffer will saturate, there may be sea snow,  and the pH will change abruptly(on Geologic time scales)  there by up to 1 pH value.  It will suddenly over 2 years (and that is very suddenly on Geologic time scales), become in the end more acidic,  but in the short term it will become more basic by 1 pH unit and oscillate. I wanted people not to panic, thats why i talked about the quantum wavefunction of a living ocean being unpredictable.  The buffer saturation is predictable and if you do the real chemical experiment with seawater, i believe you will be convinced.  I wanted to let people know that since we can't predict the quantum wavefunction of the living ocean,  the kinetics won't be simple in reality and even the book CO2 in Seawater won't be the last answer, however i think it predicts the oscillation quite accurately.  More work needs to be done on water wavefunctions, and a lot of work has to be done on ocean pollution which also may affect the outcome.  But i still feel that we should err on the side of caution and remove CO2 from the deep ocean currents that are laden with CO2. Once you have survived the Nuclear Crisis,  and thinking about the vastness of the living ocean helps you to survive it,  you can admit that there really might not be a lot of knowledge about the buffer on such a grand scale.  People still drink Soda,Coke and Perrier, instead of milk,  and they drink Gin and Tonic.  The blood buffer is an amazing thing that allows life to survive these insults!  I realize it might all be a Moot question until it happens,  because , even amongst most scientists, even chemists, there is huge amount of ignorance about the vastness of the living ocean and what it really means for the planets survival!  If they collapse the wavefunction on someone,  it would suffer at least an upset, and maybe death.  We need to leave people a way out of certainty about their being 'wrong' about everything ,and  live and let live. Its the bipolar attitude by science and math and engineering that people are 'right' or 'wrong'  and they generalize about the whole person being 'right' or 'wrong' especially in politics (academic and otherwise) that has caused all the upset and problems, especially if they only made a few mistakes, and nobody can know everything.Politicians are renowned for not being creative or knowledgeable, especially about Science.  They didn't give the people a choice or a dialogue, and many of them weren't capable of understanding the choice or the dialogue due to poor linguistic education.  Art ultimately made people feel better for the most part than science did, except for homes and gadgets and technology that purportedly made life easier.  In that sense, technology paid more money to people, but kept them paying as well! Witness Restaurants,Hollywood, Bollywood, Music, Theatre, Dance, Painting, Stories (Fiction),Comedians.  Without them we would never enjoy or laugh or sing or feel joy!  Politics only seems to feel good when it can predict and control or have power over things and people.  Thats why people revolt against it!  Science does the same thing, but in a more abstract and indirect way!
I still love Science, it was the story of Tycho Brahe and Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo and da Vinci that first got me interested in it in School.  The truth is , they were all Rich men! Are Politicians like Vampires as a metaphor preying on the weak and ignorant?  Its a real question!  Truth alone may not be enough to survive and feel happiness! The Bible may be fiction, but You need divine fiction and love and affection too! We all need to get inficted with an infictious laugh! ;-) We have to ask if we have felt any kindness from Science or any kindness from Art or any kindness from the Economy or Medicine or Politics? Was it really all about Medici Sin and The Prince, or about the Principia or the Principle?  Keep in mind that negative entropy can happen locally,  but it needs a poop shute,  where is it really going to go? There probably always are going to be Wars, thats where the s*!t really goes! They may need to learn General Relativity! Politics (Poly = many, and 'tics'), as i believe Winston Churchill said, is the Art of the Possible!  I hope we can find a way to make distillation or reverse osmosis plants possible, taking Ocean water from deep ocean currents laden with CO2, coming preferably near the surface! The Politicians just tend to do what will increase their popularity. I realize action on this topic is not really popular ,it is difficult to understand as many people are not literate enough and would be pricey.
Thankyou for reading and listening!

[Tim the Plumber]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.

I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?

[Chondrally (OP)]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.

I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?

A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter.  Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial  and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby

[Tim the Plumber]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.

I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?

A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter.  Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial  and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby

I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.

[Chondrally (OP)]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.

I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?

A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter.  Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial  and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby

I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.

Not True, a true scientist would not bet money on it thats all,  he or she would look at the facts and decide for himself or herself if it made sense or not. Also its an ethical conflict of interest and you got the year wrong, it wouldn`t be fair!  Also a conservative person wouldn`t bet on it just out of principle, it isn`t right to bet on it!  Education is the correct answer!  Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! Its not WISE to bet on it!  Either i have convinced you with my arguments and defense or i haven`t! And we may have to agree to disagree! I did not CHARGE you money for this contribution,  you don`t have to read it if you don`t want to! I am not trying to offend anyone!
There was something to do with the extinction of phytoplankton blooms in the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction aswell 488 million years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event

[Bored chemist]

Are you a betting man?

Care for a flutter?

I am not really a betting man.

If you are very confident that the slightly higher levels of CO2 expected to happen by 2035 will kill the world's oceans as you say, even though this has never happened in the past when there were much higher levels, then you can make loads of money out of me.

I will bet that this does not happen If any of the world's oceans experience such effects you can have all my money. If these do not happen by 2035 I get all yours. How's that?

A person he died and when he went up to the pearly gates he encountered St. Peter.  Peter said we have a dial with a pointer on it when you tell a lie the pointer moves around the dial  and he showed them the dial and pointer. For Mother Theresa and the pointer was still. The man asked about Donald Trumps dial and pointer and St Peter said we are using it for a fan!
I am not really after money as you might think and am poorer financially than you might expect. I still respect mother Theresa st Francis and st Patrick though I am not Catholic and Justin wellby

I'll take that as you have no confidence on your prediction then.

Not True, a true scientist would not bet money on it thats all,  he or she would look at the facts and decide for himself or herself if it made sense or not. Also its an ethical conflict of interest and you got the year wrong, it wouldn`t be fair!  Also a conservative person wouldn`t bet on it just out of principle, it isn`t right to bet on it!  Education is the correct answer!  Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! Its not WISE to bet on it!  Either i have convinced you with my arguments and defense or i haven`t! And we may have to agree to disagree! I did not CHARGE you money for this contribution,  you don`t have to read it if you don`t want to! I am not trying to offend anyone!
There was something to do with the extinction of phytoplankton blooms in the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction aswell 488 million years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian%E2%80%93Ordovician_extinction_event

Ignore the betting- it's a side issue.
You seem to have overlooked my points about the "Science" in your opening post being nonsense.

You are right about the importance of education.
Get some, and you will see that your OP didn't make sence.

[Chondrally (OP)]

Insults now|  I wondered about the kindness of Science.  Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense.    When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking.  Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully.  He is acting like it is not worth his time,  a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically.  to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response.  if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared.  but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults.  it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before.  judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish.  you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven.  I bet you can`t even program.  most chemists can`t. Can you?  Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface.  Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial?  Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue.  bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t.  It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy!  5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!

[Bored chemist]

Insults now|  I wondered about the kindness of Science.  Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense.    When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking.  Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully.  He is acting like it is not worth his time,  a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically.  to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response.  if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared.  but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults.  it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before.  judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish.  you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven.  I bet you can`t even program.  most chemists can`t. Can you?  Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface.  Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial?  Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue.  bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t.  It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy!  5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!

Pointing out that you are wrong is not an insult- or at least, it's no more of one than you saying "Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! ".
(Incidentally, you might want to learn to use capital letters when telling people that you are educating them.)

It is not sufficient for you to restate your unsupported opinion that "The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas".
If you want to be taken seriously you need to explain why. (And it would be good if you learned to use capitals here too- at the moment your post refers to diaotmic cobalt vapour- rather an unusual material)
In particular, you need to explain why  a law of physics that has stood the test of a couple of centuries will suddenly fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle

The problem isn't my lack of vision, nor my ego.
You are the one claiming that you- and only you- know what's going to happen.
That's a fairly egoistical claim.
You may well have worked on this for years. that doesn't mean you got it right.
I'm a chemist according to the subject I studied at university, but I currently earn a living as a software tester and programmer.
You need to stop making assumptions like "I bet you can`t even program. " which are both irrelevant and likely to make you look foolish when the turn out to be stupidly wrong.


About the only thing that Tim and I are likely to agree on is that this " [/size]bet you and tim plumber are the same person."is hilariously funny

[Chondrally (OP)]

Insults now|  I wondered about the kindness of Science.  Bored Chemist has assured me he is not kind or forgiving and he has not realized it does make sense.    When the buffer saturates,
The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas. if it saturates at depth, this is a progressive process that takes a few years Geologically speaking.  Bored Chemist seems to be missing the visual knowledge and background about the ocean necessary to comment fully.  He is acting like it is not worth his time,  a common ploy amongst those in Science with egos that feel threatened.
Learn to educate in the free flow of ideas.... what exactly doesn`t make sense to you specifically.  to just say the whole thing doesn`t make sense is an ignorant response.  if you really believed in education you would tackle the specifics and make points about them one by one if you cared.  but all you can do is not be nice and throw insults.  it really is a shame cambridge has come to this!
Do you respect that i worked on this for years, i don`t expect you to understand it in a quick read even if you have made many posts before.  judging by the quality of your posts it is dubious any of them made any sense other than to bait people to make them look foolish.  you haven`t read the book CO2 in Seawater or studied the visual basic of Doug Wallace and Ernie Lewis from Brookhaven.  I bet you can`t even program.  most chemists can`t. Can you?  Do you understand the diffusion equations and how they can be solved to depth with an equilibrium at the surface.  Do you understand how to forecast CO2 concentrations at sea level from Mauna Kea with something more intelligent than a polynomial?  Bet you won`t enter into a serious dialogue.  bet you and tim plumber are the same person.The baby exists, therefore chmistry and math don`t.  It is the belief of your mother! Every baby hopefully has five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot. She visualizes them during pregnancy!  5,10,15 and 20 exist and all the numbers in between as integers!

Pointing out that you are wrong is not an insult- or at least, it's no more of one than you saying "Either i have succeeded in educating you or i haven`t! ".
(Incidentally, you might want to learn to use capital letters when telling people that you are educating them.)

It is not sufficient for you to restate your unsupported opinion that "The Co2 will well up and the ocean will off gas".
If you want to be taken seriously you need to explain why. (And it would be good if you learned to use capitals here too- at the moment your post refers to diaotmic cobalt vapour- rather an unusual material)
In particular, you need to explain why  a law of physics that has stood the test of a couple of centuries will suddenly fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle

The problem isn't my lack of vision, nor my ego.
You are the one claiming that you- and only you- know what's going to happen.
That's a fairly egoistical claim.
You may well have worked on this for years. that doesn't mean you got it right.
I'm a chemist according to the subject I studied at university, but I currently earn a living as a software tester and programmer.
You need to stop making assumptions like "I bet you can`t even program. " which are both irrelevant and likely to make you look foolish when the turn out to be stupidly wrong.


About the only thing that Tim and I are likely to agree on is that this " bet you and tim plumber are the same person."is hilariously funny

Le Chatelier's principle describes the qualitative behavior of systems where there is an externally induced, instantaneous change in one parameter of a system; it states that a behavioural shift occurs in the system so as to oppose (partially cancel) the parameter change. The duration of adjustment depends on the strength of the negative feedback to the initial shock. Where a shock initially induces positive feedback (such as thermal runaway), the new equilibrium can be far from the old one, and can take a long time to reach. In some dynamic systems, the end-state cannot be determined from the shock. The principle is typically used to describe closed negative-feedback systems, but applies, in general, to thermodynamically closed and isolated systems in nature, since the second law of thermodynamics ensures that the disequilibrium caused by an instantaneous shock must have a finite half-life.[3] The principle has analogs throughout the entire physical world.

The principle while well rooted in chemical equilibrium and extended into economic theory, can also be used in describing mechanical systems in that the system put under stress will respond in a way such as to reduce or minimize that stress. Moreover, the response will generally be via the mechanism that most easily relieves that stress. Shear pins and other such sacrificial devices are design elements that protect systems against stress applied in undesired manners to relieve it so as to prevent more extensive damage to the entire system, a practical engineering application of Le Chatelier's principle

It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean.  It applies in a lab in a closed titration, but not to a vast open system..  Similarly the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not necessarily hold locally.  Negative entropy can occur locally, as long as the entropy of the universe is increasing.  We may put entropy into black holes, and then the whole universe might grow and evolve,  there may be other universes, and Hawking has talked about putting entropy into them.  But we may be in a Baby Universe ourselves that is only 13.8 billion years old!.Your assertion that the titration of the Ocean has to follow Le Chateliers principle is flawed!
I have studied Control Theory and understand negative feedback systems and positive feedback systems. I have studied Chaos theory and nonequilibrium dynamics as well as equilibrium dynamics and nonlinear dynamical systems....
The reason my post did`t make sense was because it was NOT funded work.  No government knows about it, no university knows about it until now.  The equations are speaking , and they are telling me there may be a problem
with saturation of the magnesium carbonate buffer and more importanly later on at 878 ppm CO2 near 2068 with the calcium carbonate buffer.  I don`t think the equatios are lying.  If you did the analysis and if you do the CO2 test
in a lab with seawater, i am sure the pH will change abruptly!  please respond to that! Also it is not valid to apply it to Economic Systems as they are not closed, isolated systems in nature either!  Science was applying leChateliers law to people.  It was always an opposing force, never any positive feedback, always negative feedback.... it was seeking to control and contain and predict, without being human or giving any sustenance or joy. It didn`t allow fictions unless they were approved to make money, like the pharmaceutical industry and side effects.  MEDICAL ISOTOPES. Cb-Cb.  Chalk River  where did all the blackboards and chalk go! it is a vast conspiracy.
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. However the equilibrium at the surface is vast and open and is not an isolated system.
Many parallel paths from the depths to the surface exist.  And if one avenue or street is shut off or cut off,  the gas will find another route nearby.  CO2 will off gas from the ocean surface when the magnesium buffer is saturated.under pressure from the depths. Deep Ocean currents will well to the surface and the equilibrium at the surface will be broken, and CO2 will off gas. It is a nonlinear phenomenon and only occurs on a large scale.  it might not be apparent in a lab.  Often nonlinear phenomena don`t scale from the lab to a vast open system like the ocean, and that is what causes the surprise.  that is the surprise i predict.  no human being has evcr seen it in their lifetime.  at the very least the pH will oscillate when the buffer saturates,  maybe more like the off gasing due to pH changes and pressure. The world is the OYSTER.

[Bored chemist]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]

It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

[Chondrally (OP)]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice.  You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction.  Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true.  And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth,  not one or the other.  You don`t understand wavefunctions!

It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

[Chondrally (OP)]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]

It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice.  You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction.  Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true.  And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth,  not one or the other.  You don`t understand wavefunctions!

[Bored chemist]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]

It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice.  You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction.  Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true.  And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth,  not one or the other.  You don`t understand wavefunctions!

Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card  on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).


Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.

[Chondrally (OP)]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You are saying give up and don`t do any calculation at all.... i still think the calculation is valid and that it should be respected.  You haven`t even examined it in detail so you are in no position to comment!
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice.  You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction.  Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true.  And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth,  not one or the other.  You don`t understand wavefunctions!

Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card  on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).


Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.

Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part.  You would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world.  and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid.  you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language.  Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!

[Tim the Plumber]

...[ I deleted the long pointless quote from wiki that you forgot to attribute
BC]
You are saying give up and don`t do any calculation at all.... i still think the calculation is valid and that it should be respected.  You haven`t even examined it in detail so you are in no position to comment!
It applies to closed , isolated systems in nature,  not to a vast open system like the Ocean. 
...
Actually, le Chateliers law applies to the ocean, because it is contained and isolated within the atmosphere. ...

Thank you for making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

You can stop now.

You`ve confirmed that the process of Science is not kind, forgiving or nice.  You dismissed the whole person for making a logical contradiction.  Its an error on your part in the modern age.
Both statements are true.  And its the quantum superposition of both that is the truth,  not one or the other.  You don`t understand wavefunctions!

Science isn't "kind" or unkind.
It just dismisses things that are shown to be wrong.
I see you think you can play the "quantum woo" card  on a science site.
Science is about to dismiss that idea too.
And, for the record, I'm a chemist- of course I understand wave functions.
Once someone observed them the superposition collapses to one state or the other. Guess what? I observed your post (though I doubt many others are still reading this thread) so you are wrong. (Actually, you were already wrong when you posted it- but that's hardly the point).


Now, perhaps you would like to get back to explaining how putting more CO2 in the ocean will lead to there being less CO2 in the ocean.

Your attempt to be superior is vain on your part.  You would throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Wavefunctions do apply to statements of truth and Science cannot dismiss that.
The truth is there are many contradictions in the world.  and your process of knowledge acquisition about being wrong or right is invalid.  you fail to see that people can have win win.
I mentioned already thtat you are bipolar and see things in black and white. Chemists are not being subtle about language.  Can you see your language is hurtful and unkind!

It does not matter how hurt you feel about the comments of others who actually know what they are talking about.

You are wrong clearly. You fully understand this as shown by, amongst other things like it being utterly obvious, your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is.

In science there are any number of wrong answers. The correct answer is the one that predicts correctly.

[Bored chemist]

Hi Tim,
I just wonder what you made of his post that you and I are the same person?

...  bet you and tim plumber are the same person.