Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?

Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
You were not alive 20,000 years ago to attempt to measure anything. There is no record from 20,000 years ago.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?

Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
You were not alive 20,000 years ago to attempt to measure anything. There is no record from 20,000 years ago.

So you are making the claim that the Earth is as it always has been and never changes.

Swan wrote:
How do we know about past ice ages?

Swan wrote:
Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Swan wrote:
Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate.

Swan wrote:
Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Swan wrote:
Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth's two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?

No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"

What if, perchance, one is found?

Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489
Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

Harold F. Hemond
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Downloaded by MIT on October 2, 2009 [url]http://pubs.acs.orgPublicationDate

ctober1,1990|doi:10.1021/es00080a005[/url]

The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters. However, in the presence of organic acids, ANC measurements are inconsistent with many conceptual definitions of ANC or Alk and do not provide an adequate characterization of the acid-base chemistry of water.

This is where you back yourself into a corner and force others to decide whether or not you are a troll infecting the discussion:

Im a BM wrote:Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns.

OK. It would appear that you are a troll.

Im a BM wrote:Alkalinity is a noun.

Acidity is a noun.

Im a BM wrote:Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7.

Acidic is an adjective for anything with pH less than 7.

Im a BM wrote:And the absurd claim that sea water shows bigger pH shift than pure water when acid is added was never recanted.

The question "Why should any rational adult believe in Climate Change?" has never been answered.

Im a BM wrote: In all my years as a scientist, this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to.

Apparently, in all your years, nobody ever pulled you aside and told you that you don't get to speak for any "community," that you only get to speak for yourself and that you must define all your terms when asked.

It's that last part that gives you away that you are clearly no scientist. No actual scientist would confuse science with a religion whereby sacred terms and dogma are never explained. No scientist would ever bitch and whine and gripe and snivel about having his religious sermon interrupted by CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS. One would have to be an absolute moron to think for even a moment that you are a scientist.

You don't get to shush questions from others on the basis that countless, unnamed others who are not participating in the discussion somehow "already know the answer." You need to be addressing the people involved in the discussion and answer their questions, otherwise be prepared to be recognized as the troll you are. You need to define all your terms specifically because:

1. You might have accidentally misspoken
2. Others might understand the same term(s) to mean something else, and understand different terms to mean what you mean.
3. Others might have misunderstood something else you said that becomes confusing
4. To confirm that you are not merely preaching some WACKY religion

... and if someone asks you a question, it's likely that he's not the only one who is thinking that.


The point is, if you'll just set aside the assumption that you somehow speak for science, check your religion at the door and just stick with your area of expertise, you'll get miles further. Sure, you'll get questions and perhaps corrected on some points, but you should consider that the bonus that makes it all worthwhile.

Im a BM wrote:Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian.

Enlighten me. What is the difference between synonyms? I'm sure Harvey would be eager to help you out.

Im a BM wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces?

It's funny that you mention this. Prior to your arrival, there weren't any problems that this community couldn't handle. Then suddenly, the board is getting spammed by your religious sermons in practically every single thread while you block-tackle those asking you questions.


Why should any rational adult believe that the ocean is losing its alkalinity?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?

This was one of the first responses to my very first post.

It begins with an unsourced cut and past abstract of perfectly valid science.

This is followed by bizarre anti scientific analysis from the dominant troll.

"This document seeks to engender panic.."

The "scientific" analysis is purely political, if not simply delusional.

However, the abstract contains something the fills me with pride.

It mentions that "..ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen.." were the main forms of nitrogen in submarine groundwater discharge.

A search of scientific papers reveals that prior to 1995, the term "dissolved organic nitrogen" appears in the title of just three papers.

One of them was my own, "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation..." (1994, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis).

We developed a new method to measure dissolved organic nitrogen because the classic Kjeldahl digest was too cumbersome, slow, dangerous, and inaccurate.

But dissolved organic nitrogen didn't really get much attention until after 1995.

That was the year I published the paper in the journal Nature.

The first sentence was:

"The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

The same issue of Nature (1995) includes a review article about the significance of my paper:

"New cog in the nitrogen cycle". (easy to look up with just those words)

Before that, virtually nobody was even trying to measure dissolved organic nitrogen in waters (soil water, ground water, surface water)

They knew that it existed as a theoretical component, but assumed it was negligible.

It is now standard fare to include measure of dissolved organic nitrogen, in addition to nitrate, ammonium, and sometimes nitrite, in water samples.

Otherwise they miss what is often a major component of the total nitrogen.

So, I am very proud of this contribution I made to real world science.

Persulfate oxidation has also now largely replaced the Kjeldahl digest to measure organic nitrogen. Something else I am proud of.

But I am MOST proud that OTHER discoveries I published are frequently cited in newer work related to climate change.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols (tannins) for sequestration of carbon into stable organic matter with very long mean residence time in soil.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols for minimizing the emission of nitrous oxide, a very powerful greenhouse gas.

For example, the importance of plant mycorrhizal associations for facilitating the sequestration of carbon and minimizing nitrous oxide emissions.

None of the local trolls displayed any interest

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
All acid neutralizing capacity from oxyanions of acids
Acid base chemistry back to the basics.
Acid is opposite of alkaline.
Acid things push protons into solution, lowering pH.
Alkaline things neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Alkalinity is the capacity to neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Virtually all the world's alkalinity is derived from oxyanions.
Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion of inorganic carbon.
The acid neutralizaton is the protonation of an oxyanion. The divalent (two negative charges per ion) oxyanion, is the fully deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid known as carbonic acid.
Hydroxide is an oxyanion. OH- . Monovalent oxyanion.
Sulfate is an oxyanion, divalent, and it is the fully deprotonated form of the strongly acidic acid known as sulfuric acid.
Acetate is a monovalent oxyanion, the deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid, acetic acid (vinegar).
What they all have in common is the importance of a proton coming off or going on to an oxygen atom.
Acid neutralizing capacity is all about the oxyanions.

Buzzword fallacies. A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.

Denial of acid-base chemistry. Confusion of nuclear reaction vs chemical reaction. Fixation on irrelevance. Spamming. No argument presented.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
This was my very first post, a year and a half ago.

Within minutes, the first anti scientific response was posted.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
An excellent abstract about submarine groundwater discharge was posted, without providing a title, author, source.. and very strangely highlighted.

It appears that the reference to low oxygen conditions that permit sulfate reduction in wetland sediments was misinterpreted as a reference to open water "dead zones" where low oxygen conditions are created in response to excess fertilizer runoff.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
This excellent abstract even includes the source.

But it doesn't include the nonsense term "alkaline neutralizing capacity".

Someone who understands chemistry could learn a lot about alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity) if they read this paper.

Someone who claims that the paper confirms the validity or existence of the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity" didn't read it and just wants to play anti scientific word games.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
I like the fact that "biogeochemistry" is in the title.

sealover wrote:
"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."

This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

sealover wrote:
When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

sealover wrote:
The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

sealover wrote:
H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

sealover wrote:
The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

sealover wrote:
(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom.

sealover wrote:
It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

sealover wrote:
It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

sealover wrote:
But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry.

sealover wrote:
And biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

sealover wrote:
Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.

Im a BM wrote:
So much wasted thread space.

Im a BM wrote:
A psychiatrist would have fun analyzing them.

Im a BM wrote:
A scientist can see immediately that they are anti scientific.

Im a BM wrote:
Protonation and deprotonation are the most important things that an acid or its association anion do in chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity is about protonation of oxyanions to make them into weak acids that don't dissociate at ambient pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Free protons (hydrogen ions) are what are measured as pH.

Im a BM wrote:
If that free proton goes and protonates an oxyanion, it is no longer present in solution, and the pH rises.

Im a BM wrote:
The oxyanion is no longer present in solution either, having been protonated to become a weak acid.

Im a BM wrote:
H+ + HCO3- = H2CO3 proton plus bicarbonate ion to make carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
It kind of sucks that the only way to find anything useful on this website requires scrolling past a bunch of parrot poop posts.

But they are easy to spot, with the red parrot picture.

They are often tediously long, and always pointless.

And they usually come in clusters of five or ten, so it is possible to scroll past them quickly, just watching to see when the red parrot pictures stop

sealover wrote:
from Oxford Languages dictionaries.
...deleted spam...

sealover wrote: from Oxford Languages dictionaries.

sealover wrote: They might have said "hydrogen ion" rather than "proton".

sealover wrote: However, they correctly used the term more often used by chemists ("proton")

sealover wrote:
from Oxford Languages dictionaries.

Acid

noun

1. (laymen's definition)

2. CHEMISTRY
a molecule or other entity that can donate a proton or accept an electron pair in reactions.



They might have said "hydrogen ion" rather than "proton".

However, they correctly used the term more often used by chemists ("proton")

sealover wrote:
Why do chemists prefer to refer to H+ as "proton" rather than "hydrogen ion"?

One reason is that "hydrogen" is already part of so many terms.

For example, "hydrogenate" and "dehydrogenate" already refer to chemical reactions unrelated to the hydrogen ion.

So, they say "protonate" and "deprotonate" to make it clear what they mean when they describe acid base reactions.

Anyone who studies chemistry in the real world learns these things during their first, introductory course.