Is there more photosynthesis in the oceans than on dry land?

Die at another place.

ROTFLMAO!

Die in the same place.

Kiss my phytoplankton!!!


"Ivan Kobrinsky" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1119724021.787365.314390@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Ivan Kobrinsky wrote:
Hum... photo-synthesis, photo is greek for light, right? The bacterias
you described seems to use the heat energy to do whatever is done and
not light energy, therefore it couldn't be called photosynthesis, could
it? I'm not a biologist and i don't even know much about it, but that
just seemed wrong.

I don't think it would be one of the main oxygen source anyway, so it's
a good enough approximation to consider only the oxygen generated by the
things that live right on top of the ocean water. Althought your
considerations are interesting, they might have been posted with a
different subject.

In article <d9i6r3$2o1s$[Only registered users see links. ].au>,
Peter Jason <[Only registered users see links. ].nz> wrote:

CO2 levels are increasing faster than the oceans can take the surplus
up, i.e. equilibrium hasn't been reached, and the disequilibrium is
getting worse. The CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming,
which will increase CO2 levels in a positive feedback cycle, as shifting
patterns of rainfall make forests less viable, promote forest fires,
and dry out arctic muskeg exposing thick layers of ancient peat to
rapid oxidation.

Note that CO2 taken up by land plants may be locked up in cellulose for
millennia, while CO2 taken up by algae is mostly released soon after as
the algal cell metabolizes and when it dies.

The oceans are full of carbonate, so it's unlikely that CO2 level is a
limiting factor in phytoplankton growth, as it is in land and fresh
water plants under some conditions. Most likely, the limiting factor
is light or nitrate in the most productive parts of the ocean.

As for the shelly fauna of the sea taking up the excess carbonate,
carbonate is not a limiting factor in the growth of marine fauna,
either. Note also, that most calcium carbonate is recycled in the
oceans -- shells are consumed by other organisms and any that fall
below a certain depth dissolve at the higher pressures. Very little
sticks around long enough to become limestone.

There have been times in the past that planetary equilibria with higher
levels of atmospheric CO2 have been maintained, but they were
associated with different climates than we have now as well as
completely different flora and fauna. So sure, a new equilibrium can
be attained, but it may well not be one that can support 6 billion
humans, and it may involve extreme fluctuations in climate and
biosphere on the way which could take millions of years to recover
from. Even fairly minor fluctuations can result in massive human
death tolls, mostly from starvation as crops fail and the best
agricultural land is destroyed by rising sea levels.

So yeah, if you're concerned about the Future of Life on Earth, don't
worry, take the long view, even the catastrophic extinctions returned
to comparable biodiversity in 25-50 million years. Not the same
animals and plants, but plenty of them. But if you're concerned about
yourself and the next few generations, there's no reason to believe
it's business as usual, the oceans will sop it all up, let the good
times roll.

In article <d9k9ij$c42$[Only registered users see links. ].org>,
Rafael Almeida <[Only registered users see links. ].br> wrote:

It seemed strange to me too, but if these hot water jets are as hot as
350C, they would be hot enough to emit some near-infrared and even a
bit of red light by black-body radiation, at the tail end of the curve.

Ivan, do you have any references for this idea that deep ocean vent
bacteria can photosynthesize from this source of light? It's an
interesting idea, and a new one to me. I'd like to read more about it.


That's true. Btw, Ivan, ignore Cereus. He gets his jollies by trying to
prove he's superior to everybody else here. Arguing with him is pointless
and just gives him more excuses to engage in name-calling and other
childish behaviours. Most of us just ignore him, so he has to wait for
new participants to play with.

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:
Still, even if it emits a little red light the energy source would be
heat, as the generates little light. For what i know any eletromagnetic
wave that we can't see is just eletromagnetic wave, not light

Hey! this is rather good. Thanks for the links, which I have bookmarked.

Grandma was right; a picture is worth a thousand words.




<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1119715067.329563.62220@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Hum... But doesn't the land trees use more oxygen than the bacterias and
algas (i'm not sure about the name of it in english)? Then wouldn't the
relation (oxygen produced)/(oxygen used) be greater in the ocean?

In article <[Only registered users see links. ].br>,
Rafael Almeida <[Only registered users see links. ].br> wrote:

Well, if the reaction is the usual one in photosynthesis, where a photon
is the energy source, even if it isn't a photon of human-visible light,
I think we'd probably have to call it photosynthesis. There are lots of
ways of acquiring usable energy from temperature differences, including
steam engines, etc, but I don't think any living organisms use them. If
anyone knows of one, please correct me! I suppose a deep ocean vent,
where water at 4C is adjacent to water at 350C would be a place to look
for such bizarre and hard to imagine adaptations.

I'm very curious to know more about these bacteria, and whether energy
from this light source is a significant source of energy to them, or an
adjunct to the well-known chemosynthesis based on oxidizing H2S popular
with Archaeobacteria in unusual environments. I hope Ivan can provide
us with some sources of information.

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:
I'm curious also. I don't think they would be able to do photosynthesis
and chemosynthesis, it seems too complex for a bacteria. In order to
keep things simple it probably only uses one source of energy and, if it
gives too little energy than it would have another constraints on itself
that would allow it to live with little energy. But i could be entirely
wrong as all i know is high school biology.