Thanks, MrDibble. I should have explained rather than just dropping a link.
I’ll add that organisms can use respired CO2 to influence the local concentration and pH. So there’s some hint of truth there even if he’s mostly wrong.
Emphasis mine
Could you please explain this bolded statement a bit better … are you suggesting there’s a sharp bright line between chemistry and biology? … or are you suggesting not one single ATP molecule is converted back into ADP during this process? …
Yeah … arguing with you about geology is useless … so questions about geology instead:
1] How long does it take to form a one meter thick layer of limestone?
2] What causes voids to form within the limestone matrix?
3] How does mercury get included in this matrix, or is this not as common as environmentalists claim?
Essentially correct in this context … rocks combining with CO[sub]2[/sub] is not an effective sink over 100 year time intervals …
I would nitpick the last bit though … through a tree’s life, it will absorb CO[sub]2[/sub]; upon her death, for the most part she’s consumed by other organisms who in turn hold the carbon … if we’re concerned about the current CO[sub]2[/sub] overload in the atmosphere, reforestation would be one way to bring the balance back if and only if we stop emitting CO[sub]2[/sub] as specified in the OP … we have to remember that every acre of land suitable for agriculture is currently under intense agriculture, much of this land was originally forestland (c.f. Indiana or southeast China) …
Dissolved, inorganic carbon precipitates based on the local concentration of relevant species. Same as if you mixed them yourself. There is some energy expended in prepping the beaker; they have to concentrate and move the calcium and make some carbonic anhydrase, etc. I couldn’t tell you how much.
No - biology is just chemistry in fancy lipid sacs - but I am suggesting there’s a difference between a process that’s a pure solution reaction, and one that requires catalysis by some biological entity.
In atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] dissolving in water? Are you being serious here? No ATP is involved, no. Not directly. Of course much of the *CO[sub]2[/sub] *
that dissolves comes from biological sources, but the dissolution is unmediated, AFAIK.
How long is a piece of string? :dubious:
What kind of limestone? What depositional environment? What time period in Earth’s history?
10 million years, say, is a very good rate for a meter of chalk, but pretty crappy for a travertine.
Various things, but often dissolution
I don’t know what environmentalists claim about mercury in limestone, but most mercury is either volcanic or hydrothermal in origin, so…hot fluids passing through the rock. Or later intrusion of dissolved mercury with groundwater.
Now, what the hell is the point of those questions, which are completely unrelated to greenhouse gases?
Thank you for these answers … follow-up on #2, what are those crystals that form inside the voids? …
Just establishing that limestone formation isn’t an effective sink for man’s carbon pollution as some here are suggesting …
Please show where anyone in this thread has written that limestone formation is an effective sink for man’s carbon pollution.
The existence of rocks comprising carbon derived from biological uptake of carbon dioxide is proof that the claim that “biological uptake is carbon neutral” is false. That is all. Biological uptake is not carbon neutral. Net flux is low compared to flux in either direction, but it is not zero.
Net flux is* also* low compared to the amount we’re digging up and burning.
Too many to list here, but quartz and calcite are the most common infill minerals.
No-one suggested this at all. Limestone was brought up in response to the idea that biological uptake is carbon neutral - which it is not. Or we wouldn’t still have biogenic limestones that are billions of years old.