Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Target audience buzzword challenge. Chemoautotrophic bacteria.
...deleted excess noise...

Buzzword fallacy. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

sealover wrote:
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC)

Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity.
[quote]sealover wrote:
It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC).

Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material.

The cation exchange sites may be permanent negative charges arising within the structure, due to isomorphous substitution of lower charge cations within the crystal structure of clay minerals.

The cation exchange capacity may be the variable charge that arises when carboxylic groups or phenolic groups on solid phase organic acids deprotonate.

Cation exchange capacity is a direct measure of how much cation charge the solid phase can adsorb. This is also how much proton charge they can neutralize, as protons exchange for adsorbed cations.

This is just a preview, really.

sealover wrote:
We'll need to get into CEC a lot more as we discuss the importance of soil organic matter, and the consequences of its loss.

In a typical soil, about half the CEC arises from clay minerals, and the other half from organic matter.

When poor management causes loss of soil organic matter, it does more than release a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
It causes the soil to be able to hold fewer nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium.

Loss of soil organic matter causes associated nutrient cations to be lost as well.

sealover wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

What a valuable contribution to the debate!

How do you know? Were you there?

Polly wanna cracker?

sealover wrote:How do you know? Were you there?

sealover wrote:What a valuable contribution to the debate!

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.

Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.

Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.

If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.

sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity to the ocean is simply to better manage them.

Rising sea level and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.

As sea level rises, the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced. There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments. Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts. Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.

When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid. These "acid sulfate soils" develop very low pH. They also export a lot of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter to surface waters. Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity for the sea as groundwater discharge now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water.

Im a BM wrote:
"Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid

The three most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

CO2 has a "magic" power that the more abundant gases do not have.

Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon (a little bit) can dissolve in water, as can CO2.

But CO2 is the only one that forms acid when in water. H2CO3, or carbonic acid.

Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward.

There is another gas, present in the atmosphere at concentrations far tinier than CO2, that also forms acid when dissolved in water. Sulfur trioxide, SO3, combines with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4.

There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water.

Sulfuric acid is very strong, and it readily deprotonates into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions.

Carbonic acid is very weak, and it does not easily deprotonate into separate hydrogen ions and bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". Sulfate will not accept a proton to become sulfuric acid unless the pH is EXTREMELY low, well below 1.

Bicarbonate and carbonate provide virtually all the alkalinity in sea water.

These weak acid anions will readily accept a proton or two to become carbonic acid, even at pH well above 7. This buffers sea water against pH change, keeping it a little above pH 8 despite large additions of acid.

But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.

It is the large depletion of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), which makes carbonate ions much less available to organisms for shell formation.

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Im a BM wrote:Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate"

Photosynthesis is the most important source of organic carbon, but not the only source.

Not talking about some whacko theory that coal or oil formed from anything other than ancient organic carbon laid down by photosynthetic organisms.

Chemoautotrophic bacteria were turning carbon dioxide into organic carbon long before photosynthesis evolved.

Methanogenic bacteria, for example. 4000 million years ago there was a LOT of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the earth's young crust was constantly emitting hydrogen gas.

Methanogens combined the hydrogen with the carbon dioxide to form methane, and get a little metabolic energy in the process. Methane is organic carbon.

Perhaps a more modern example would make the point more clear.

Many chemoautotrophic bacteria are known as lithophiles. They use oxygen to oxidize minerals to get energy. The minerals include all variety of sulfides, ammonia, ferrous iron or Fe(II), manganese(II), arsenic(III), and a long list of others.

These oxidation reactions generate sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ferric iron or Fe(III), arsenic(V), and the oxidized form of all the others (selenate, phosphate, borate, molybdate, etc.)

But no organic carbon. These bacteria have to take CO2 and reduce it to organic carbon, using some of the energy they get from mineral oxidation.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Swan wrote:Lobsters certainly do have shells, the lobster shell is called a carapace

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

Sqealover wrote:
And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding.

Sqealover wrote:
Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events

Sqealover wrote:
Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures.

Sqealover wrote:
Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface.

Dumbass wrote:
Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not.

squeal overFrom the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

NOAA Propaganda:"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units.

NOAA Propaganda: so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

squeal overI would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

squeal overThe average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

squeal overSea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered. But that buffering is being depleted,

squeal overMaybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

squeal overBut just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

squeal overI imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The rock lobster where I live have hard shells.Its all theoretical Sea lover it just is not and never going to happen.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods.

Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells".

The hard "shell" is made of chitin - an organic carbon compound that is also rich in nitrogen. They do not depend on carbonate to make their "shell".

Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. We need more CO2, to support feeding the growing populations of all species of life, not less. A couple od degrees warming isn't a big deal, if you can't have a regular meal instead. Of course, liberals would like both, a comfortable environment, with fewer people...

CO2 is certainly the "food" from which organisms synthesize organic carbon.

Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have certainly increased the productivity of many terrestrial plants - those that grow on land.

Most land plants employ C-3 metabolism in photosynthesis. This involves capturing a CO2 molecule by the Rubisco enzyme, to then be reduced into organic carbon. When CO2 is too low, Rubisco accidentally captures oxygen molecules instead of CO2. Known as "photorespiration", this oxygen is passed by Rubisco to attach and burn up an organic carbon atom to make CO2. This costs the plant sugar that it already made.

Forests, in particular, have increased productivity in response to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now "aggrading" more by accumulating organic carbon.

Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not.

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Although sea water pH remains above 8, because it is so well buffered with bicarbonate alkalinity, the alkalinity has been significantly depleted. This diminishes the bioavailability of carbonate ions for shell formation.

Here, the word "shell" is to describe hard structures made of calcium carbonate.

Clams, for example, and all the other shelled mollusks.

Coral reefs, for example, a bit more loosely defining what we call a "shell".

Even barnacles, which are crustaceans. Like all arthropods, crustaceans have an exoskeleton "shell" made of chitin. Chitin is very different from calcium carbonate, and does not require carbonate ion to form. But the barnacle also has a "shell" structure that it builds around itself which is made of calcium carbonate.

Yes, CO2 is food for farm plants, and we certainly would NOT want its concentration in the atmosphere to somehow drop so low that it diminishes productivity.

CO2 is also acid for the sea, and we certainly WOULD want to somehow mitigate its demonstrable adverse impact on marine ecosystems.

And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding.

Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather event also causes crop losses as untimely early blossoms later freeze in the early spring, or fruit freezes on the trees during record cold nights.

Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures.

Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface.

There is no physical possibility that any measure humans take could reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to cause famine because it is too low to support crops. I mean, if that was a genuine concern anyone had.

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

duncan61 wrote:
Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water.

duncan61 wrote:
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

duncan61 wrote:
So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.

From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units. This may not seem like much, but the pH is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

I would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

In contrast, pure water at pH 7 only has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, or 0.000005 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Sea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered.

But that buffering is being depleted, and it impacts the availability of carbonate.

Maybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

But just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

I imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Argument from randU fallacy.

duncan61 wrote:
Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water.

Nope. Most just stays dissolved CO2.

duncan61 wrote:
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

Nope. Water is still H2O, just as it's always been. Salt in the sea is still NaCl just as it's always been.

duncan61 wrote:
So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

Argument from randU fallacies. Making up numbers isn't going to work.

duncan61 wrote:Name the animals?

Im a BM wrote:
0.1 pH units - Apologies to NOAA

I misquoted NOAA by accidentally adding an extra zero.

The pH shift over 200 years has been about 0.1 pH unit, NOT 0.01 pH units.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover wrote

Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2.

Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water.

So 50 times more already. Humans add 3%. It changes ocean chemistry. I can see how that works. Have a look at a picture of the planet. There is these really deep puddles called oceans and that skinny bit on the outside is the Atmosphere

"Humans add 3%" I have no idea what this refers to.

From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page:

"In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution... the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.01 pH units. This may not seem like much, but the pH is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30% increase in acidity."

I would not have worded it in terms of pH, but they are trying to use language that the public is most likely to understand.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 0.116 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents, or 0.00232 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

In contrast, pure water at pH 7 only has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, or 0.000005 grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Sea water has 2320 times as much alkalinity as pure water - highly buffered.

But that buffering is being depleted, and it impacts the availability of carbonate.

Maybe everything really is just fine and Mother Nature is as happy as ever.

But just during my own lifetime, for every ten wild animals that lived on Earth when I was a child, there are now fewer than four.

I imagine that Mother Nature isn't too happy about that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid

The three most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

CO2 has a "magic" power that the more abundant gases do not have.

Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas.

Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon (a little bit) can dissolve in water, as can CO2.

But CO2 is the only one that forms acid when in water. H2CO3, or carbonic acid.

Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward.

There is another gas, present in the atmosphere at concentrations far tinier than CO2, that also forms acid when dissolved in water. Sulfur trioxide, SO3, combines with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4.

There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water.

Sulfuric acid is very strong, and it readily deprotonates into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions.

Carbonic acid is very weak, and it does not easily deprotonate into separate hydrogen ions and bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". Sulfate will not accept a proton to become sulfuric acid unless the pH is EXTREMELY low, well below 1.

Bicarbonate and carbonate provide virtually all the alkalinity in sea water.

These weak acid anions will readily accept a proton or two to become carbonic acid, even at pH well above 7. This buffers sea water against pH change, keeping it a little above pH 8 despite large additions of acid.

But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.

It is the large depletion of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), which makes carbonate ions much less available to organisms for shell formation.

Excellent post.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann did not write:
Excellent post.

We are making progress.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann did not write:
Excellent post.

We are making progress.

Word stuffing.