Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification > Page 8

Page 8 of 9

07-06-2023 09:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]sealover wrote: Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere. Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. In time, a natural population of methane oxidizing bacteria will establish at the place where the fracking leak methane contacts the atmosphere. They will oxidize the methane into carbon dioxide, reducing its global warming potential by 95%. But they can only oxidize the methane they can catch. They probably can't catch most of it. BUT WE CAN HELP THE METHANE OXIZIDIZING BACTERIA HELP US! We can help make sure they get there in the first place. They only exist in nature where natural sources of methane come up to the atmosphere. There probably aren't a lot of them close by when fracking opens up a crack. So we can culture the methane oxidizing bacteria and use them to establish populations where fracking causes methane to leak. We can culture them selectively to perform across a broad range of conditions of temperature, moisture, salinity, pH, etc. We can match our selectively cultured methane oxidizers to the conditions where we will plant their seeds. But they won't be able to oxidize all the methane. They probably won't even be able to oxidize MOST of the methane. We can help them out with some engineering. We can locate the point sources of methane emission and construct a high surface area structure to enable maximum contact between methane oxidizing bacteria and methane emitted from the fracking induced leak. A large, moist surface area, possibly supplemented with Pasteur Salt type inorganic nutrients to enable bacteria to thrive on the methane. The microorganisms will do it voluntarily and they will do their best to survive with just a tiny bit of help from us. Those methane oxidizing bacteria can help us reduce the global warming potential of fracking methane emissions by 95%. I'm not saying don't frack. I'm just saying be sure to light a match if you fart so it doesn't stink.
07-06-2023 09:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]sealover wrote: "Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms with understand that "fossil fuel" include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. It is not a controversial term. Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. Nobody is claiming that coal underwent actual "fossilization". Nobody is claiming that the organic carbon in coal has been replaced with silica, and it is therefore actually a "fossil". What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is that natural gas can be purified into sulfur-free methane. Pure hydrocarbon. No sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium. What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is the just about ALL COAL IS DIRTY COAL. Some coal is SO DIRTY that wealthy nations finally stopped burning it. It is scientific reality that although coal is not actually a "fossil", it does often contain many other elements besides carbon. And one scientific reality is that coal fired power plants are the source of half of all the anthropogenic mercury entering the air, land, and sea. The term "neutralize" can apply to many things besides acidity. To "neutralize" the methane means, in this case, to reduce its global warming potential by 95% If I WERE trying to neutralize the "pH of the methane", at least I would know how calculate the alkalinity required to accomplish it. I would know that the units for alkalinity are NOT pH.
07-06-2023 09:43
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]sealover wrote: Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity. It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC). Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity. 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. 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. 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.
07-06-2023 09:44
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]sealover wrote: Cation Exchange Capacity. Exchangeable Acidity. % Base Saturation. Comparing solid phase CEC with aqueous solution ANC (alkalinity). Both are measure of ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY (moles per liter or kg) Both quantify a "pool" that contains base cations and metals adsorbed to solid phase exchange sites, or contains base cations and metals in solution complexed by oxyanions. Both solid phase CEC and solution ANC can exchange the base cations or metals for protons, or visa versa. Both are very pH dependent. At higher pH, more solid phase CEC sites and more solution phase ANC sites are occupied by base cations and metals, and fewer by protons. "Exchangeable acidity" is how much of the solid phase CEC is occupied by protons. You need to know "exchangeable" acidity to calculate how much lime must be added to bring soil to some desired higher pH. "% Base Saturation" Cation exchange capacity doesn't provide plants with any nutrition unless the cation exchange sites are occupied by nutrient base cations or metals. As highly leached soils become older and more acidified, more and more of the cation exchange sites are occupied by aluminum cations, rather than calcium, magnesium, potassium, ammonium, iron, or something good for the plant. Aluminum is not a plant nutrient, but it can be toxic to plants. "% Base Saturation" is the percentage of cation exchange sites occupied by calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. A low % Base Saturation means that most CEC sites are occupied by aluminum or by acid protons. A high CEC soil is useless for plants unless there is something good on the cation exchange sites. A soil with low % Base Saturation can't supply much base cation or metal nutrition to plants. It can't even neutralize much more acidity.
07-06-2023 09:46
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]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.
07-06-2023 09:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	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".[/quote] 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...[/quote] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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.
07-06-2023 09:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	CO2 is certainly the "food" from which plants and chemoautotrophic bacteria 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.
07-06-2023 09:52
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	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. [quote]Im a BM wrote: [quote]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
07-06-2023 09:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	Im a BM wrote: [quote]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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I performed extensive investigations of groundwater, surface water, and soil chemistry in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Unfortunately, rather than getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, it all got buried in technical memorandums and site investigation reports. Technically in the public domain, but hard to cite as a reference. And hard for other scientists to follow up on. In contrast, my research in soil carbon and nitrogen cycling has been followed up by thousands of other scientists. That baby has grown beyond my wildest dreams. That knowledge will continue to be applied no matter what I do now. The baby that I still need to nurture is regarding the biogeochemistry of coastal wetlands. There is a tiny chance that, even in this rabbit hole, cutting edge science will find its way through some route to someone who cares about these things.
07-06-2023 17:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463)	sealover wrote:"Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms with understand that "fossil fuel" include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. So you have never been exposed to educated people who understand what hydrocarbons are, that they are not fossils and that they aren't strictly carbon such as coal, which is also not a fossil. sealover wrote:It is not a controversial term. Sure it is. It is a totally erroneous term that only serves to promote a political agenda. You keep insisting that you are a chemist yet you can't seem to find it in you to use the appropriate terms, only politically-expedient terminology. You are the one pushing it, so it is totally disingenuous for you to claim that I am somehow not contending your usage and that I am not pointing out the correct terms that you should be using. Ergo, you shouldn't be surprised at being completely dismissed as any sort of chemist by any rational adult. Learn what hydrocarbons are. Learn what carbon is. Learn what a fossil is. ... unless you are too stupid to learn. sealover wrote:Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. You clearly don't speak for scientists (refer to the above). Scientists know what hydrocarbons are. Scientists know what carbon is. You apparently do not. Dismissing you as a scientist is not controversial. sealover wrote:Nobody is claiming that coal underwent actual "fossilization". Yes, that is exactly what you are claiming when you add the "fossil" modifier. It's how English works. You could have just said "fuels". If asked "which fuels?" you can then specify "hydrocarbons" or "carbon (coal)" or wood or "nuclear" or whatever, i.e. the correct term. However, your political need to add the "fossil" modifier and totally sell out your own personal credibility for someone else's political agenda reveals that you do not speak the truth on the matter and should not be trusted. We already know that the Dominican coral reef that you claim has vanished, is still there thriving. You destroyed your credibility long ago as someone who will lie without even thinking about it. Your use of the "fossil" modifier is just one thing that you do that gets yourself kicked to the curb. Learn what hydrocarbons are. Learn what carbon is. Learn what a fossil is. sealover wrote:Nobody is claiming that the organic carbon in coal has been replaced with silica, and it is therefore actually a "fossil". Yes, that is the meaning of the "fossil" identifier. Adding the "fossil" modifier is totally incorrect when applied to carbon in coal, yet you insist on doing so and on chopping your credibility off at the knees when you do. Otherwise, scientists know that the carbon in coal is not a fossil. You should learn what a fossil is. sealover wrote: What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is that natural gas can be purified into sulfur-free methane. What everyone but the scientifically illiterate seem to understand is that any resulting methane is not a fossil, or that the original natural gas is not a fossil. One has to be criminally undereducated to apply the "fossil" modifier to hydrocarbons. Would you take seriously someone that ignorant? sealover wrote:Pure hydrocarbon. No sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium. Interesting. I wasn't aware that natural gas had any sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic or cadmium. sealover wrote:What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is the just about ALL COAL IS DIRTY COAL. What everyone but a handful of political activists (who won't define their terms) seems to understand is that coal can be burned very cleanly and that digging into undefined absolutes, e.g. "all coal is dirty" is unproductive and is a non-starter. I am not aware of anyone who doesn't understand this. sealover wrote:It is scientific reality that although coal is not actually a "fossil", it does often contain many other elements besides carbon. How do "scientific" realities differ from our common, shared reality of reality? How do I know if I am looking at a "scientific reality" as opposed to reality? Yes, coal is comprised of carbon (which is the fuel that combusts) and impurities (which don't combust). Coal with lesser impurities burns better and cleaner. Removing impurities reduces pollution. sealover wrote:And one scientific reality is that coal fired power plants are the source of half of all the anthropogenic mercury entering the air, land, and sea. ... but you refuse to define "anthropogenic" to protect your claim from being immediately debunked. Ergo, your claim is summarily dismissed. Get into the habit of defining your terms. sealover wrote:The term "neutralize" can apply to many things besides acidity. The military applies the term "neutralize" to "targets" and hairdressers apply it to "unwanted hair color." sealover wrote:To "neutralize" the methane means, in this case, to reduce its global warming potential by 95% ... and we're right back to the terms that you were asked to define when you first arrived, but that remain totally undefined. 1. What is "Global Warming"? 2. What is "Global Warming potential" in terms of its relationship to the previoius definition? 3. How did you measure the "Global Warming potential", as defined in #2, for methane? 4. How did you measure the reduction of "Global Warming potential" resulting from the "neutralization" process you mention? Thank you in advance for your prompt answer to these questions, and let's not pretend that you aren't pushing a political agenda.
07-06-2023 17:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463)	sealover wrote:I performed extensive investigations of groundwater, surface water, and soil chemistry in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Unfortunately, rather than getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, it all got buried in technical memorandums and site investigation reports. Technically in the public domain, but hard to cite as a reference. And hard for other scientists to follow up on. Maybe you were pushing too hard on the Global Warming advocacy and your undefined buzzwords had to be buried, or perhaps your ignorance of hydrocarbons and fossils had to be edited out. Who can be sure? Nonetheless, even though you weren't cited specifically by name, perhaps your work is captured in This REPORT: WATER QUALITY SCIENCEIN THE SACRAMENTO – SAN JOAQUIN DELTA Chemical Contaminants and Nutrients sealover wrote:In contrast, my research in soil carbon and nitrogen cycling has been followed up by thousands of other scientists. That baby has grown beyond my wildest dreams. That knowledge will continue to be applied no matter what I do now. You didn't try to push Global Warming in that "research," right? You didn't refer to hydrocarbons as fossils, did you? You probably gave people reason to feel confident that you didn't fudge the information just to sell someone else's political agenda, ... because the type of people who might be able to use that research all know that hydrocarbons are not fossils.
RE: Polyphenols and environmental remediation - newest citation11-06-2023 02:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	3 days ago a new paper came out regarding remediation of anthropogenic chlorophenols. Shivani Yadav et al. 2023. A comprehensive review of chlorophenols: Fate, toxicology, and its treatment. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 342 118254 It cites my polyphenol research. It is an example of applied biogeochemistry to address a practical problem. Chlorophenols are part of a broader class of halogenated organic carbon compounds. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. In organic form, the halogens are covalently bonded to carbon atoms. Under strong chemical reducing conditions, reductive dehalogenation can be carried out by bacteria or by abiotic reactions. The halogen, chlorine in the case of chlorophenols, is chemically reduced to chloride ion. The remaining part of the organic compound is much easier to degrade, once the halogen is removed. Polyphenols been used in many ways to facilitate remediation of harmful contaminants in the environment. Earlier this year, a paper came out about reducing hexavalent chromium using polyphenols as a way of detoxifying Cr(VI) contaminated soil. As reducing agents for reductive dehalogenation, polyphenols may turn out to be more effective than I predicted. Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in environmental chemistry will join or rejoin the discussion. Hopefully, it will be clear that there is an active member who doesn't simply make up scientific claims, but is actually a highly trained and accomplished scientist in the real world.
11-06-2023 04:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. You don't need to 'neutralize methane'. sealover wrote: Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. The U.S. does not buy oil from the Middle East. Neither oil nor natural gas are fossils. Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. sealover wrote: Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere. Methane is normally present in the atmosphere. sealover wrote: Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: In time, a natural population of methane oxidizing bacteria will establish at the place where the fracking leak methane contacts the atmosphere. Methane is found not only in oil wells, but also on the surface in compost piles, swamps, etc. sealover wrote: They will oxidize the methane into carbon dioxide, reducing its global warming potential by 95%. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: ...deleted spam... I'm not saying don't frack. I'm just saying be sure to light a match if you fart so it doesn't stink. Methane is odorless and colorless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 04:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: "Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Neither coal, oil, nor natural gas are fossils. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. sealover wrote: Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms with understand that "fossil fuel" include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. You don't get to speak for everybody. You are not God. Neither coal, oil, nor natural gas are fossils. sealover wrote: It is not a controversial term. It is a buzzword. Meaningless. Fossils aren't used as fuel. sealover wrote: Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. You don't get to speak for everybody. You are not God. sealover wrote: Nobody is claiming that coal underwent actual "fossilization". You are. sealover wrote: Nobody is claiming that the organic carbon in coal has been replaced with silica, and it is therefore actually a "fossil". You are. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is that natural gas can be purified into sulfur-free methane. Methane does not have sulfur. sealover wrote: Pure hydrocarbon. No sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium. Methane does not have mercury, lead, arsenic, or cadmium. sealover wrote: What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is the just about ALL COAL IS DIRTY COAL. You don't get to speak for everybody. You are not God. If you want to handle coal, wash your hands afterwards. It's really very simple. sealover wrote: Some coal is SO DIRTY that wealthy nations finally stopped burning it. Blatant lie. Coal is used in the United States, Canada, Germany, China, and many other parts of the world. sealover wrote: It is scientific reality that although coal is not actually a "fossil", it does often contain many other elements besides carbon. Coal is just carbon. Any impurities in it are not coal. sealover wrote: And one scientific reality is that coal fired power plants are the source of half of all the anthropogenic mercury entering the air, land, and sea. Science does not define the word 'reality'. Coal does not contain mercury. sealover wrote: The term "neutralize" can apply to many things besides acidity. One of your favorite buzzwords. sealover wrote: To "neutralize" the methane means, in this case, to reduce its global warming potential by 95% No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: If I WERE trying to neutralize the "pH of the methane", at least I would know how calculate the alkalinity required to accomplish it. Methane does not have a pH. sealover wrote: I would know that the units for alkalinity are NOT pH. It is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 04:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity. It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC). No such phrase. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity. There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity' or 'solid phase alkalinity'. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material. None are cations. There is no such thing as a 'cation exchange site' or 'solid phase soil material' (other than that soil is a solid). Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: 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. ...deleted remaining spam and buzzwords... Clay is not a crystal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 04:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: Cation Exchange Capacity. Exchangeable Acidity. % Base Saturation. Comparing solid phase CEC with aqueous solution ANC (alkalinity). Both are measure of ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY (moles per liter or kg) ...deleted remaining spam and buzzwords... There is no such thing as a solid aqueous solution. There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity'. There is no such thing as 'exchangeable acidity'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 05:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: "Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid CO2 is not magick. sealover wrote: 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. CO2 is not magick. sealover wrote: Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: 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. Nope. Nitrogen can form nitric acid in water. Most CO2 stays simply as dissolved CO2. It does not convert to any acid. sealover wrote: Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward. Apparently not for you, since you don't understand a bit of it. sealover wrote: 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. Sulfur dioxide can also form sulfuric acid. Meh. sealover wrote: There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water. Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'acid neutralizing capacity'. Alkalinity is not 'acid neutralizing capacity'. sealover wrote: There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". You can acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: 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. You cannot buffer acid with an acid. sealover wrote: But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems. There is no havoc with marine ecosystems. sealover wrote: 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. Organism form their shells just fine. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 05:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: Lobsters are crustaceans, which are among the broader group of animals known as arthropods. Called "shellfish", their exoskeletons aren't really "shells". They are really shells. sealover wrote: 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". Carbon isn't organic. Lobsters use calcium carbonate to make their shells, same as any other shellfish. sealover wrote: Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate? Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The only dietary source, is from plants. Plants are not carbon. sealover wrote: Plants are the only thing that can take carbon from the environment directly, CO2. See the nearest Airgas facility. Liquified CO2 is used in welding, soda fountains, and metallurgy, and other uses. sealover wrote: 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. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. sealover wrote: "Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate" Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Photosynthesis is the most important source of organic carbon, but not the only source. Photosynthesis does no such thing. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Not talking about some whacko theory that coal or oil formed from anything other than ancient organic carbon laid down by photosynthetic organisms. The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a 'whacko theory'. It's a real chemical reaction. sealover wrote: Chemoautotrophic bacteria were turning carbon dioxide into organic carbon long before photosynthesis evolved. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: 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. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: Methanogens combined the hydrogen with the carbon dioxide to form methane, and get a little metabolic energy in the process. Methane is organic carbon. Methane is not carbon. Carbon is not organic. Methane is a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: But no organic carbon. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: These bacteria have to take CO2 and reduce it to organic carbon, Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: using some of the energy they get from mineral oxidation. Breaking up CO2 costs energy. It is not an energy source. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 13:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: CO2 is certainly the "food" from which plants and chemoautotrophic bacteria synthesize organic carbon. CO2 is not food for plants. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have certainly increased the productivity of many terrestrial plants - those that grow on land. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2. sealover wrote: 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. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Forests, in particular, have increased productivity in response to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now "aggrading" more by accumulating organic carbon. Carbon is not organic. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2. sealover 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. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. 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. WRONG. The CO2 in seawater is equal to the partial pressure of CO2 in the air above it. Apparently you've never experienced a soda going flat. sealover wrote: Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2. No photosynthesis is. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Very little of it does (about 1%). The rest stays simply as dissolved CO2. sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water. No. CO2 has always been in seawater. sealover wrote: 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. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. Crustaceans are doing fine. sealover wrote: Here, the word "shell" is to describe hard structures made of calcium carbonate. All shells contain calcium carbonate. sealover wrote: Clams, for example, and all the other shelled mollusks. All shells. sealover wrote: Coral reefs, for example, a bit more loosely defining what we call a "shell". It is a shell. sealover wrote: 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. All shells contain calcium carbonate. sealover wrote: 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. CO2 is not food for plants. There is not adverse impact on marine ecosystems. sealover 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. There is no increased frequency or severity of drought or flooding. sealover wrote: 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. There is no change in the seasons. Plants have no temperature sensors. sealover wrote: Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures. Climate cannot change. The Texas grid withstood the freezing temperatures. It didn't collapse. sealover 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. No change. Oranges freeze during some winters. That's why orange growers own smudge pots. They have for decades. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2023 13:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: From the NOAA website, "Ocean Acidification" page: ...deleted mindless cut and paste... No argument presented. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-06-2023 10:55
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]sealover wrote: 3 days ago a new paper came out regarding remediation of anthropogenic chlorophenols. Shivani Yadav et al. 2023. A comprehensive review of chlorophenols: Fate, toxicology, and its treatment. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 342 118254 It cites my polyphenol research. It is an example of applied biogeochemistry to address a practical problem. Chlorophenols are part of a broader class of halogenated organic carbon compounds. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. In organic form, the halogens are covalently bonded to carbon atoms. Under strong chemical reducing conditions, reductive dehalogenation can be carried out by bacteria or by abiotic reactions. The halogen, chlorine in the case of chlorophenols, is chemically reduced to chloride ion. The remaining part of the organic compound is much easier to degrade, once the halogen is removed. Polyphenols been used in many ways to facilitate remediation of harmful contaminants in the environment. Earlier this year, a paper came out about reducing hexavalent chromium using polyphenols as a way of detoxifying Cr(VI) contaminated soil. As reducing agents for reductive dehalogenation, polyphenols may turn out to be more effective than I predicted. Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in environmental chemistry will join or rejoin the discussion. Hopefully, it will be clear that there is an active member who doesn't simply make up scientific claims, but is actually a highly trained and accomplished scientist in the real world.
RE: pages 7 and 8 for recap of most relevant posts of thread12-06-2023 11:01
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	Beginning near the top of page 7 of this thread, and continuing on to part of page 8, are all the most relevant posts in chronological order. Sooner or later, someone who isn't just here to troll and who is capable of comprehending the definition of alkalinity will see this thread. They can find all the most relevant posts on pages 7 and 8.
12-06-2023 12:49
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	sealover wrote: Beginning near the top of page 7 of this thread, and continuing on to part of page 8, are all the most relevant posts in chronological order. Sooner or later, someone who isn't just here to troll and who is capable of comprehending the definition of alkalinity will see this thread. They can find all the most relevant posts on pages 7 and 8. Sooner or later, love is gonna get ya Sooner or later, girl you got to give in Sooner or later, love is gonna let 'cha Sooner or later, love is gonna win Its just a matter of time Before you make up your mind To give all that love that you've been hiding Its just a question of when I've told you time and again I'll get all the love you've been denying Sooner or later, love is gonna get ya Sooner or later, girl you got to give in Sooner or later, love is gonna let 'cha Sooner or later, love is gonna win You say you'll never be mine But darling they'll come a time I'll taste all that love that you've been hiding Its just a question of time Before you make up your mind And give all that love you've been denying You've been looking for love In all the wrong places You've been looking for love All the wrong faces Gotta get 'cha girl Off this illusion Gonna save your heart From all this confusion Sooner or later, love is gonna get ya Sooner or later, girl you got to give in Sooner or later, love is gonna let 'cha Sooner or later, love is gonna win Love is gonna win Its just a matter of time Before you make up your mind And give all the love that you've been hiding Its just a question of when Told you time and again I'll get all the love you've been denying Sooner or later, love is gonna get ya Sooner or later, girl you got to give in Sooner or later, love is gonna let 'cha Sooner or later, love is gonna win IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: pages 7 and 8 for most relevant posts21-06-2023 21:13
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	sealover wrote: Beginning near the top of page 7 of this thread, and continuing on to part of page 8, are all the most relevant posts in chronological order. Sooner or later, someone who isn't just here to troll and who is capable of comprehending the definition of alkalinity will see this thread. They can find all the most relevant posts on pages 7 and 8. The new viewer is likely to lose patience pretty quickly if they try to read every post. With a little practice, one can learn to quickly scroll past the troll posts. That red parrot picture is a red flag, for example. More than half the posts on almost every thread I've started are parrot poop. You only need to read ONE to see why it is pointless to read more than one. The big head with gears inside is another one that is easy to spot and ignore. Unlike parrot poop, the gear head posts can be entertaining. Especially when it gets into the Marxist conspiracy stuff. The American flag posts are usually just snarky heckling. But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. So, to make it easier, I've separated out the posts that are relevant to the thread. On pages 7 and 8 there is a section without any parrots, gear heads, or flags.
22-06-2023 06:28
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	sealover wrote: But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. ...and somehow you are not embarrassed when you are unable to define your terms? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed coming to a debate site sniffling about people who disagree with you? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed calling yourself American while trying to silence free speech? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed about wasting mine and your fellow American's tax dollars "studying" a topic which you still have not defined? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed suggesting I plant trees to stop erosion? ...are you embarrassed AT ALL that you claim a holier than thou PHD yet can't even figure out this website's quoting function? I could go on but there's really no point. You are here to preach your undefined religion and no one is having it. Not a religion you say? Yes it is. see lover or BM wrote: I'll stick to believing what all the other scientists do about what biogeochemistry is, and why it is so relevant to discussion of climate change. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-06-2023 15:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. ...and somehow you are not embarrassed when you are unable to define your terms? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed coming to a debate site sniffling about people who disagree with you? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed calling yourself American while trying to silence free speech? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed about wasting mine and your fellow American's tax dollars "studying" a topic which you still have not defined? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed suggesting I plant trees to stop erosion? ...are you embarrassed AT ALL that you claim a holier than thou PHD yet can't even figure out this website's quoting function? I could go on but there's really no point. You are here to preach your undefined religion and no one is having it. Not a religion you say? Yes it is. see lover or BM wrote: I'll stick to believing what all the other scientists do about what biogeochemistry is, and why it is so relevant to discussion of climate change. I'm embarrassed that I cannot give you any bonus points at the moment. I have to make a new set. I can, however, offer you an indefinite set of kudos. It's kind of like a blank check, i.e. you fill in the number of kudos you want.
22-06-2023 17:20
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. ...and somehow you are not embarrassed when you are unable to define your terms? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed coming to a debate site sniffling about people who disagree with you? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed calling yourself American while trying to silence free speech? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed about wasting mine and your fellow American's tax dollars "studying" a topic which you still have not defined? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed suggesting I plant trees to stop erosion? ...are you embarrassed AT ALL that you claim a holier than thou PHD yet can't even figure out this website's quoting function? I could go on but there's really no point. You are here to preach your undefined religion and no one is having it. Not a religion you say? Yes it is. see lover or BM wrote: I'll stick to believing what all the other scientists do about what biogeochemistry is, and why it is so relevant to discussion of climate change. I'm embarrassed that I cannot give you any bonus points at the moment. I have to make a new set. I can, however, offer you an indefinite set of kudos. It's kind of like a blank check, i.e. you fill in the number of kudos you want. I would like just one kudos, but taking into account the advice of keepit, I should only settle for half of my potential. Can I just get a kuc? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-06-2023 20:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	Repairing damaged quoting... sealover wrote: 3 days ago a new paper came out regarding remediation of anthropogenic chlorophenols. Shivani Yadav et al. 2023. A comprehensive review of chlorophenols: Fate, toxicology, and its treatment. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 342 118254 It cites my polyphenol research. It is an example of applied biogeochemistry to address a practical problem. Chlorophenols are part of a broader class of halogenated organic carbon compounds. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. Fluorine is not organic. Chlorine is not organic. Bromine is not organic. Iodine is not organic. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in environmental chemistry will join or rejoin the discussion. You deny and discard chemistry. sealover wrote: Hopefully, it will be clear that there is an active member who doesn't simply make up scientific claims, but is actually a highly trained and accomplished scientist in the real world. It ain't you. You are a pretender. A nothing. You are not a scientist. Science itself is not scientists. Neither is chemistry scientists. Science has no politics. Science is not a degree, 'accomplishment', 'training', does not use consensus since it has no voting bloc, has no religion, does not depend on 'members', is not a university, website, paper, book, quotation, pamphlet, letter, or a bunch of buzzwords and jabberwocky. You deny and discard theories of science, even basic principles of chemistry. You deny mathematics, claiming Magick Numbers that you made up. You don't even know what 'real' is, or how the word is defined. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2023 20:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: Beginning near the top of page 7 of this thread, and continuing on to part of page 8, are all the most relevant posts in chronological order. Sooner or later, someone who isn't just here to troll and who is capable of comprehending the definition of alkalinity will see this thread. They can find all the most relevant posts on pages 7 and 8. Spamming is not a good idea on this site or on any other forum. It can get you banned. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2023 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	sealover wrote: sealover wrote: Beginning near the top of page 7 of this thread, and continuing on to part of page 8, are all the most relevant posts in chronological order. Sooner or later, someone who isn't just here to troll and who is capable of comprehending the definition of alkalinity will see this thread. They can find all the most relevant posts on pages 7 and 8. The new viewer is likely to lose patience pretty quickly if they try to read every post. With a little practice, one can learn to quickly scroll past the troll posts. That red parrot picture is a red flag, for example. More than half the posts on almost every thread I've started are parrot poop. You only need to read ONE to see why it is pointless to read more than one. The big head with gears inside is another one that is easy to spot and ignore. Unlike parrot poop, the gear head posts can be entertaining. Especially when it gets into the Marxist conspiracy stuff. The American flag posts are usually just snarky heckling. But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. So, to make it easier, I've separated out the posts that are relevant to the thread. On pages 7 and 8 there is a section without any parrots, gear heads, or flags. Because it is spam. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2023 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: But it is embarrassing to see my nation's flag associated with racist and homophobic posts. ...and somehow you are not embarrassed when you are unable to define your terms? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed coming to a debate site sniffling about people who disagree with you? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed calling yourself American while trying to silence free speech? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed about wasting mine and your fellow American's tax dollars "studying" a topic which you still have not defined? ...and somehow you are not embarrassed suggesting I plant trees to stop erosion? ...are you embarrassed AT ALL that you claim a holier than thou PHD yet can't even figure out this website's quoting function? I could go on but there's really no point. You are here to preach your undefined religion and no one is having it. Not a religion you say? Yes it is. see lover or BM wrote: I'll stick to believing what all the other scientists do about what biogeochemistry is, and why it is so relevant to discussion of climate change. Grass is better at stopping erosion. It grows anywhere, and it grows quickly. It numerous blades are far better and anchoring the soil than any tree. Ask your local Department of Transportation. There is a reason grass is used to anchor cuts and embankments on roads and freeways instead of trees. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: reminder of thread topic23-06-2023 11:12
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	[quote]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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, I hope that they don't forget that they also have the right to remain silent.
23-06-2023 15:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463)	sealover wrote:Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are pretending to be the sole judge who declares whether someone is "genuinely" interested. We have been over this. You do not get to declare anyone's level of interest nor do you get to declare which questions are "valid" ... especially when your basis for determination is your (in)ability to answer the question. You can't, on the one hand, pretend to be bringing science to the forum while, on the other hand, you seemingly dismiss any and all questions posed to you because you can't answer any of them. Additionally, you don't get to blame others, or call them names (e.g. "troll"), for having asked the questions you can't answer and for revealing that you don't know what you are talking about, especially when you theoretically could have nipped any contention in the bud by answering the questions in the first place. sealover wrote: Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. Exactly. Nobody is calling for you to be banned, or for your voice to be silenced in any way, despite your repeated spamming. sealover wrote:But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, You don't get to declare this. You need to answer the questions posed to you, or stop whining about you not having a clue what you are talking about.
24-06-2023 03:26
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are pretending to be the sole judge who declares whether someone is "genuinely" interested. We have been over this. You do not get to declare anyone's level of interest nor do you get to declare which questions are "valid" ... especially when your basis for determination is your (in)ability to answer the question. You can't, on the one hand, pretend to be bringing science to the forum while, on the other hand, you seemingly dismiss any and all questions posed to you because you can't answer any of them. Additionally, you don't get to blame others, or call them names (e.g. "troll"), for having asked the questions you can't answer and for revealing that you don't know what you are talking about, especially when you theoretically could have nipped any contention in the bud by answering the questions in the first place. sealover wrote: Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. Exactly. Nobody is calling for you to be banned, or for your voice to be silenced in any way, despite your repeated spamming. sealover wrote:But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, You don't get to declare this. You need to answer the questions posed to you, or stop whining about you not having a clue what you are talking about. As you declare yourself to be the sole judge of what is real and what is fallacy. Grow up turd IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
25-06-2023 03:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463)	Swan wrote:As you declare yourself to be the sole judge of what is real and what is fallacy. When did I do this? Swan wrote:Grow up turd . Attached image:
RE: when the only goal is to be a troll25-06-2023 13:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1272)	IBdaMann wrote: I already mentioned this before. You haven't defined a single term. You did not come here with any science. You came here with a religious dogma looking to preach. sealover wrote: Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Define: "Climate", "Climate Change", "Climate Change mitigation" and criteria for evaluating Climate Change mitigation. sealover wrote: Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, A chemist would use the correct term "hydrocarbons." A chemist would know that no fossils are burned as fuel. sealover wrote:ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come. So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism. Ask me how I know. sealover wrote:Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had. sealover wrote: ...dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. This thread is a non-starter. You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you? sealover wrote:Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge. Right. Natural geological processes can't possibly be the source of the ocean's alkalinity. No, of course not. It has to be coastal wetlands, Climate's cousin, I presume ... but then there are those pesky "nutrients" that will kill us all if the government doesn't swoop in and save us, right? How much should our taxes be increased in order to properly rectify the situation? sealover wrote:Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, Are you talking about the hypoxic DEAD ZONES? You know, the ones that "scientists" assure us are worse than previously feared? sealover wrote: 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. Are any of these three "geoengineering" approaches free? ... or does each cost a lot of money? Wait, don't tell me, the most expensive one is the "preferred" one but it will require substantial government "investment" which can easily be funded by a small tax increase, am I right? I have a much better idea. Just have the US Navy scoop up some sea water the next time it has a ship at sea, and simply measure the sea water's pH. When you discover that the sea water is still greater than 8.0 ... you can claim victory without having to do anything.
25-06-2023 13:11
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:As you declare yourself to be the sole judge of what is real and what is fallacy. When did I do this? Swan wrote:Grow up turd . Very intellectual, indeed. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
25-06-2023 23:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	...repairing damaged quoting... sealover wrote: Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. There is no significant atmospheric concentration of carbon. sealover wrote: Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel. They do not combust. sealover wrote: ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Pascal's Wager fallacy. sealover wrote: Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy', so there is no 'human intervention' possible. sealover wrote: 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. The sea is already alkaline. sealover wrote: Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity No such thing. The sea is already alkaline. sealover wrote: entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge. Coastal wetlands are not submarine groundwater. sealover wrote: Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Carbon is not organic. There is chemical called 'sulfate'. There is no such thing as 'oxidant' in chemistry. sealover wrote: Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity There is no such thing as 'inorganic carbon alkalinity' There is no such chemical as 'sulfate'. There is no sulfur in carbon. sealover wrote: rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. sealover wrote: 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. The sea is already alkaline. Carbon is not organic. There is no such chemical as 'sulfate'. There is no sulfur in carbon. sealover wrote: Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. Meaningless buzzwords and jabberwocky is not a topic. sealover wrote: Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. You are trying to...unsuccessfully. sealover wrote: But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, Buzzwords are not a topic. sealover wrote: I hope that they don't forget that they also have the right to remain silent. Censorship doesn't work, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2023 23:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21648)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are pretending to be the sole judge who declares whether someone is "genuinely" interested. We have been over this. You do not get to declare anyone's level of interest nor do you get to declare which questions are "valid" ... especially when your basis for determination is your (in)ability to answer the question. You can't, on the one hand, pretend to be bringing science to the forum while, on the other hand, you seemingly dismiss any and all questions posed to you because you can't answer any of them. Additionally, you don't get to blame others, or call them names (e.g. "troll"), for having asked the questions you can't answer and for revealing that you don't know what you are talking about, especially when you theoretically could have nipped any contention in the bud by answering the questions in the first place. sealover wrote: Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. Exactly. Nobody is calling for you to be banned, or for your voice to be silenced in any way, despite your repeated spamming. sealover wrote:But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, You don't get to declare this. You need to answer the questions posed to you, or stop whining about you not having a clue what you are talking about. As you declare yourself to be the sole judge of what is real and what is fallacy. Grow up turd LIF. Grow up. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-06-2023 00:41
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Anyone who is genuinely interested in the thread topic is reminded what it is. This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are pretending to be the sole judge who declares whether someone is "genuinely" interested. We have been over this. You do not get to declare anyone's level of interest nor do you get to declare which questions are "valid" ... especially when your basis for determination is your (in)ability to answer the question. You can't, on the one hand, pretend to be bringing science to the forum while, on the other hand, you seemingly dismiss any and all questions posed to you because you can't answer any of them. Additionally, you don't get to blame others, or call them names (e.g. "troll"), for having asked the questions you can't answer and for revealing that you don't know what you are talking about, especially when you theoretically could have nipped any contention in the bud by answering the questions in the first place. sealover wrote: Nobody is denying the local trolls their right to free speech. Exactly. Nobody is calling for you to be banned, or for your voice to be silenced in any way, despite your repeated spamming. sealover wrote:But given that they have no genuine interest in the thread topic, You don't get to declare this. You need to answer the questions posed to you, or stop whining about you not having a clue what you are talking about. As you declare yourself to be the sole judge of what is real and what is fallacy. Grow up turd LIF. Grow up. Great comment from the mental 12-year-old IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL

Page 8 of 9

Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean	418	30-04-2024 22:38
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution	1	21-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts	13	18-08-2022 06:25
CO2 ocean uptake	306	22-02-2021 04:08