Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification > Page 2

Page 2 of 12

11-03-2022 21:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:Nice work. You piqued my interest when you wrote that Hamelin Pool Telegraph station is where the first oxygen came from. I was hoping you would embellish. duncan61 wrote:The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet. Again, this is what I believe, ... and what you believe, but it is speculation about the past. Such beliefs should begin with the words "I believe that ... " Neither you nor I were around anywhere before the 1700s with any sort of audio/video equipment so we don't get to assert how things were in the distant past without sporting some form of time machine. duncan61 wrote:Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun I did notice the fun you were having and I certainly do not want to disrupt any of it. I will leave the CO2 matter to you. Have at it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Before I get into the origin of anoxygenic photosynthesis, during which reductants such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, elemental-sulfur, organic-sulfur, arsenite, ferrous iron, or nitrite are consumed. During which oxidants such as sulfate, ferric iron, arsenate or nitrate are generated. Photosynthesis has been the main supplier of oxidants for ecosystems, long before oxygenic photosynthesis loaded up the planet with the strongest (biologically generated in any significant amount) oxidant yet.
RE: oxygen isn't easy to make12-03-2022 00:21
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	duncan61 wrote: I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar This is basically all true, except the assertion that "This is where the first oxygen came from". Oxygen isn't easy to make. An electric current can transform water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but it costs energy. It is not spontaneous. 4000 million years ago the earth's crust was still very actively spewing reductants to the surface. Volcanic activity was widespread and frequent. The planet was still getting hit with the occasional massive asteroid. These asteroid strikes caused even more massive release of reductants to the surface. Indeed, they are the benchmark events for the big chert layers at the bottom of banded iron formation sequences. By 3000 million years ago, things had calmed down. Volcanic active was much less intense than before. We were't getting hit by massive asteroids any more. And the supply of high energy reductants such as hydrogen was being depleted. The oldest banded iron formations, the "microbanded" ones have only two kinds of material in the repeating layers. Chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, and on and on and on. These older banded iron formations are useless as iron ore. The iron layers are barely a couple of millimeters thick. The repetition is so consistent that they were once believed to be "annual varves", representing yearly seasonal shifts in sediment deposition. I'll have to get back to how intracellular photooxidation evolved into photosynthesis later. When microbanded banded iron formations were created, there were already at least two kinds of anoxygenic photosynthesis. At least two different kinds of anoxygenic photosynthetic communities were competing for reductants and sunlight. During periods when hydrogen was most abundant, the photosynthetic community that used hydrogen as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis would win out. They got the most bang for the buck from the sunlight and they outcompeted the others. Their photosynthesis oxidized the hydrogen into water. Water was the oxidized product of that photosynthesis. When dihydrogen was less depleted by the photosynthetic bacteris, there was still plenty of hydrogen sulfide to use as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. A different community of photosynthetic bacteria could then become competitive. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide doesn't give as much bang for the buck from the sunlight, and they couldn't compete until the ones who depended on dihydrogen starved off. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant generates sulfate as the oxidized product of that photosynthesis. When the new community of H2S-based photosynthesis displaced the H2-based community, they changed the chemistry of the sea water by adding sulfate - an oxidant. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using dihydrogen produces water as the oxidized product. Water isn't a very good oxidant. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide produces sulfate as the oxidized product. Sulfate is a mediocre oxidant, but it changed everything. Each time the earth belched up another massive release of hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizing photosynthetic community became dominant. Their debris rained down on the sea floor, piling up organic carbon. And no good oxidants to do anything with it. Carbon piled up. Each time photosynthesis eventually depleted the available hydrogen enough for the hydrogen sulfide oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria to become dominant, an oxidant became available to enable microorganisms to exploit carbon on the sea floor. Carbon still piled up. But some of it was being lost via sulfate reduction by bacteria. Iron pyrite, among others, was being formed among the organic carbon on the sea floor. When the microbanded banded iron formation sediments were first deposited, they consisted of alternating layers. Pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, etc. Over geologic time these carbon deposits became fossilized. No, it wasn't "fossil fuel". The carbon got replaced by silica. The pure-silica chert layers of the banded iron formations are the fossils of the dead organic matter in the ancient seafloor. Hmm, this is supposed to be about oxygen, so I'll jump ahead another 1000 million years. The excited skin of the earth has calmed down over the years. Fewer and fewer reductants are being spewed out. Photosynthetic bacteria have had to evolve to use weaker and weaker reductants. Dihydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide were the best ones available before, but they are getting harder to find. Well, there are other forms of reduced sulfur besides hydrogen sulfide that could be used. And they were. Arsenic was widely available and arsenite was a good reductant. Ferrous iron was a pretty good reductant. New photosynthetic communities evolved to exploit the next best available reductants. Sulfate, arsenate, and ferric iron were the oxidized products of photosynthesis released into the environment. Skip, Skip, Skip.... Well, now we're getting desperate. Harder and harder to find a good reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. What about nitrite? That's a tough nut to crack. Gonna require a lot of voltage. And somebody did it. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generates nitrate as the oxidized product. Nitrate is a pretty powerful oxidant. But that took a lot of voltage from the photosystem to yank off its electron. Not much bang for the buck as far as energy captured during photosynthesis. But if nitrite is the only reductant in town, that's what you have to work with. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generated a powerful oxidant for microorganisms to exploit. Reductants that were too weak to be exploited using sulfate as oxidant could now be oxidized for profit using nitrate. But even nitrite can be depleted. What's a photosynthetic bacteria to do? Well, that nitrite oxidizing photosystem generate a whole lot of voltage. Enough to oxidize water? Somebody did it. They used water as reductant in a photosystem that could generate so much voltage it could yank an electron right off a water molecule. The water falls apart and release oxygen. Oxygen is the oxidized product from using water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. Hardly any bang for the sunlight buck, compared to the old school anoxygenic photosynthesis using reductants much stronger than water. These oxygenic guys still can't compete in microsites where there is still enough hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, (organic-S, elemental-S, sulfite), arsenite, ferrous iron, or nitrite to support anoxygenic photosynthesis. Check out the switch hitter. A blue green bacteria that is perfectly capable of doing oxygenic photosynthesis. Put him in a hydrogen rich environment and he'll turn off one of his photosystems. He won't squander sun energy just to tear water apart. He'll just take up the hydrogen directly from the sea and get a whole lot more bang for the buck in photosynthesis.
12-03-2022 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:Nice work. You piqued my interest when you wrote that Hamelin Pool Telegraph station is where the first oxygen came from. I was hoping you would embellish. duncan61 wrote:The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet. Again, this is what I believe, ... and what you believe, but it is speculation about the past. Such beliefs should begin with the words "I believe that ... " Neither you nor I were around anywhere before the 1700s with any sort of audio/video equipment so we don't get to assert how things were in the distant past without sporting some form of time machine. duncan61 wrote:Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun I did notice the fun you were having and I certainly do not want to disrupt any of it. I will leave the CO2 matter to you. Have at it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Before I get into the origin of anoxygenic photosynthesis, during which reductants such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, elemental-sulfur, organic-sulfur, arsenite, ferrous iron, or nitrite are consumed. During which oxidants such as sulfate, ferric iron, arsenate or nitrate are generated. Photosynthesis has been the main supplier of oxidants for ecosystems, long before oxygenic photosynthesis loaded up the planet with the strongest (biologically generated in any significant amount) oxidant yet. How do you know? Were you there? 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
12-03-2022 02:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: duncan61 wrote: I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar This is basically all true, except the assertion that "This is where the first oxygen came from". How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: Oxygen isn't easy to make. Oxygen is an element. You don't need to make it. sealover wrote: An electric current can transform water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but it costs energy. It is not spontaneous. So? sealover wrote: 4000 million years ago the earth's crust was still very actively spewing reductants to the surface. Volcanic activity was widespread and frequent. The planet was still getting hit with the occasional massive asteroid. These asteroid strikes caused even more massive release of reductants to the surface. Indeed, they are the benchmark events for the big chert layers at the bottom of banded iron formation sequences. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: By 3000 million years ago, things had calmed down. Volcanic active was much less intense than before. We were't getting hit by massive asteroids any more. How do you know? Were you there? I removed the rest of your fanciful storytelling, since it comes down to the same question. 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: Banded Iron Formations12-03-2022 02:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	duncan61 wrote: Nice work.The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.When the sun shines they literally fart oxygen.This put oxygen in the atmosphere.They still exist in Shark bay as the shallow ocean has little movement and evaporates rapidly in the hot conditions that exist there nearly all year round.The hyper saline water did and still does not allow the snails and other lifeforms that developed later to consume the stromatolites that are still doing their thing.I have seen this in person.Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I totally respect your interest in paleobiogeochemistry. So, banded iron formations are more than just the world's biggest deposits of iron ore. They are among the oldest evidence of life on earth. However, they represent photosynthetic ecosystem community succession. Life was already pretty advanced by the time they formed. The oldest banded iron formations are just shy of 4000 million years old. They are the "microbanded" variety. No thick layers of high grade iron ore. Just a bunch of alternating thin (maybe 2 mm) layers. They represent ecosystem community succession between just two types, back and forth. There are only two kinds of interlayered material. Pure chert and iron-and-sulfur-enriched chert. The pure chert layer formed from sediment deposited following large release of hydrogen into the environment. Usually geologic activity, but sometimes following a big blow from an asteroid. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant does not generate any oxidant, just water. When the hydrogen became depleted, a new photosynthetic community came in. They did anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant. This generates sulfate. Sulfate is an oxidant. When hydrogen was abundant, there was no sulfate being generated. Organic matter piled on the sea floor with virtually no oxidants available to decompose it. When hydrogen was depleted and a new photosynthetic community used hydrogen sulfide as reductant, the sulfate they generated was used as an oxidant in the sea floor. Sulfate reduction generated pyrite. The alternating layers were originally deposited as pure organic matter or organic matter plus pyrite. Fossilization replaced carbon with silica. The earth was very active in those days. It never took very long before a wave of geologic activity resulted in an abundance of hydrogen again. About 1000-2000 million years later, very different kinds of banded iron formations were created. This was a much more complex community succession. There were more than two kinds of layers. They always begin at the bottom with layers of pure chert, just under layers of chert plus iron and sulfur. But then there are overlying layers of increasing iron content, with iron in an increasingly oxidized state. What the miners coveted were the top layers of each sequence, massive deposits of the purest ore. Every once in a while, a huge asteroid would still strike and begin another sequence. But now there wasn't going to be a rapid resupply in the relatively near future. Unlike the microbanded iron formations, there was enough time for the hydrogen sulfide to run out as the next best reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. When they had to resort to iron reduction, using ferrous iron as reductant, they generated ferric iron as the oxidized product. Ferric iron is a more powerful oxidant than sulfate. The chemistry of the sediments in the banded iron formations reflects the presence of this more powerful oxidant. A third distinct layer type in every sequence. When ferric iron ran out, they resorted to using arsenite or nitrite as reductants for anoxygenic photosynthesis. This generated arsenate and nitrate, which are more powerful oxidants than sulfate or ferric iron. A fourth distinct layer type in many sequences. When all the available reductants ran out, photosynthetic communities had to resort to oxygenic photosynthesis. Oxygenic photosynthesis using water as reductant generates oxygen, a very powerful oxidant. The sediments deposited in the presence of this powerful oxidant are quite distinct from those that underly them.

12-03-2022 03:43
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hi I feel the need to give you some background.3 years ago I was working on a house and the daughter had a little humpy shack down the back.She was a full on hippie chick and at some point she declared that CO2 is bad man as it is making the planet too hot.I said is it as I had no idea and started doing some research.I purchased a CO2 meter and started taking readings and CO2 was around 390-420 ppm all over the areas I went.If I blow on it it will go up to 6000-7000 ppm.The exhaust on my jeep spools up to 10,000 which I think might be the end of calibration but if I stand 4 feet away it is the same as anywhere else.My gas hotplates with all burners on struggles to get to 2000ppm till I burn my hand and my gas hot water unit shows nothing at the vent.I have done a primitive test with 2 small plastic greenhouses that I wished to have anyway and held one at 3000ppm in direct sunlight for 30 minutes and recorded no temperature rise on thermometers calibrated to .1 degree.I took a water sample from the beach at Trigg and it came up at 8.3 PH.The original set point is the reading at Mauna loa in 1958 that was actually 313ppm not 280 as declared and now it is around 400ppm.I have detected a small decrease over the time I have had the device.I have mainly done this stuff to find the truth and to be able to respond.This week a coworker stated something about sea levels and I said so what and he responded with too bad if you live on a pacific island.Please name the families that have had to move because of sea levels.The president of Tuvalu has been asking for international aid from the 70s and it is now 2022 do the math it should be underwater but it isnt.I have 3 years worth of this stuff so ask away.If it is warmer so what why is it bad?The best defence we have against the deadly climate change is a window.Look out the window,What you see is what you got.CO2 is not going to increase any more.We do not have enough stuff to burn V the new growth.I have a soda stream and if the water is above 6 degrees it does not take a charge and is flat.The oceans can only absorb CO2 where it is super cold then as the water passes Argentina the tiny amount of C02 absorbed at the surface is released again.
RE: Arsenic and the Hazards of Good Intentions12-03-2022 04:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	duncan61 wrote: Hi I feel the need to give you some background.3 years ago I was working on a house and the daughter had a little humpy shack down the back.She was a full on hippie chick and at some point she declared that CO2 is bad man as it is making the planet too hot.I said is it as I had no idea and started doing some research.I purchased a CO2 meter and started taking readings and CO2 was around 390-420 ppm all over the areas I went.If I blow on it it will go up to 6000-7000 ppm.The exhaust on my jeep spools up to 10,000 which I think might be the end of calibration but if I stand 4 feet away it is the same as anywhere else.My gas hotplates with all burners on struggles to get to 2000ppm till I burn my hand and my gas hot water unit shows nothing at the vent.I have done a primitive test with 2 small plastic greenhouses that I wished to have anyway and held one at 3000ppm in direct sunlight for 30 minutes and recorded no temperature rise on thermometers calibrated to .1 degree.I took a water sample from the beach at Trigg and it came up at 8.3 PH.The original set point is the reading at Mauna loa in 1958 that was actually 313ppm not 280 as declared and now it is around 400ppm.I have detected a small decrease over the time I have had the device.I have mainly done this stuff to find the truth and to be able to respond.This week a coworker stated something about sea levels and I said so what and he responded with too bad if you live on a pacific island.Please name the families that have had to move because of sea levels.The president of Tuvalu has been asking for international aid from the 70s and it is now 2022 do the math it should be underwater but it isnt.I have 3 years worth of this stuff so ask away.If it is warmer so what why is it bad?The best defence we have against the deadly climate change is a window.Look out the window,What you see is what you got.CO2 is not going to increase any more.We do not have enough stuff to burn V the new growth.I have a soda stream and if the water is above 6 degrees it does not take a charge and is flat.The oceans can only absorb CO2 where it is super cold then as the water passes Argentina the tiny amount of C02 absorbed at the surface is released again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Millions sickened by arsenic poisoning. The hazards of good intentions. In the 1970s to 1980s, well intentioned public health programs sought to improve the lives of millions of the world's most impoverished people living in densely populated delta regions. River water used for human consumption was infested with parasites and pathogens. Many thousands of shallow tube wells were installed to provide safe drinking water. In the Ganges delta, the Mekong delta, the Red River delta, etc. The water was somewhat salty and worthless for irrigation. But it didn't have parasites or pathogens. What the shallow delta groundwater from the wells did have was arsenic. It took years before the problem was identified. By then, literally millions of people had been sickened with "blackfoot disease" and arsenic-related cancers. The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing? There was not a recognition among policy makers that expertise in biogeochemistry was needed. Why would there be arsenic in groundwater? They didn't even know how to ask the right questions. They didn't think the questions needed to be asked.
12-03-2022 04:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic.
12-03-2022 04:12
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. -------------------------------------------------- They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did.
12-03-2022 04:26
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	By diverting from my post to wells in an area I am not going to have you accepted my real world observations where I live?
12-03-2022 19:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: duncan61 wrote: Nice work.The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.When the sun shines they literally fart oxygen.This put oxygen in the atmosphere.They still exist in Shark bay as the shallow ocean has little movement and evaporates rapidly in the hot conditions that exist there nearly all year round.The hyper saline water did and still does not allow the snails and other lifeforms that developed later to consume the stromatolites that are still doing their thing.I have seen this in person.Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I totally respect your interest in paleobiogeochemistry. gag! That's gotta be one of the worst mangling of English to create a buzzword that I have ever seen! So, banded iron formations are more than just the world's biggest deposits of iron ore. They aren't. sealover wrote: They are among the oldest evidence of life on earth. ...deleted remaining scripture and buzzwords... Iron isn't life. 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
12-03-2022 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	duncan61 wrote: Hi I feel the need to give you some background.3 years ago I was working on a house and the daughter had a little humpy shack down the back.She was a full on hippie chick and at some point she declared that CO2 is bad man as it is making the planet too hot.I said is it as I had no idea and started doing some research.I purchased a CO2 meter and started taking readings and CO2 was around 390-420 ppm all over the areas I went.If I blow on it it will go up to 6000-7000 ppm.The exhaust on my jeep spools up to 10,000 which I think might be the end of calibration but if I stand 4 feet away it is the same as anywhere else.My gas hotplates with all burners on struggles to get to 2000ppm till I burn my hand and my gas hot water unit shows nothing at the vent.I have done a primitive test with 2 small plastic greenhouses that I wished to have anyway and held one at 3000ppm in direct sunlight for 30 minutes and recorded no temperature rise on thermometers calibrated to .1 degree.I took a water sample from the beach at Trigg and it came up at 8.3 PH.The original set point is the reading at Mauna loa in 1958 that was actually 313ppm not 280 as declared and now it is around 400ppm.I have detected a small decrease over the time I have had the device.I have mainly done this stuff to find the truth and to be able to respond.This week a coworker stated something about sea levels and I said so what and he responded with too bad if you live on a pacific island.Please name the families that have had to move because of sea levels.The president of Tuvalu has been asking for international aid from the 70s and it is now 2022 do the math it should be underwater but it isnt.I have 3 years worth of this stuff so ask away.If it is warmer so what why is it bad?The best defence we have against the deadly climate change is a window.Look out the window,What you see is what you got.CO2 is not going to increase any more.We do not have enough stuff to burn V the new growth.I have a soda stream and if the water is above 6 degrees it does not take a charge and is flat.The oceans can only absorb CO2 where it is super cold then as the water passes Argentina the tiny amount of C02 absorbed at the surface is released again. No. The oceans are not saturated with CO2...ever. The concentration of CO2 in the oceans matches that of the air above it. The oceans aren't a soda. 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
12-03-2022 19:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did. Correct. They would have found arsenic in only some wells ... and they would have discovered arsenic.
RE: CORRECTION ferrous not ferric iron13-03-2022 02:22
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	sealover wrote: When ferric iron ran out, they resorted to using arsenite or nitrite as reductants for anoxygenic photosynthesis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This was not correct. It was a careless mistake to write "ferric" instead of "ferrous". It's not just about semantics. It makes a huge difference regarding what they do in biogeochemistry. Ferric iron is an oxidant. Ferrous iron is a reductant.
13-03-2022 03:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:This was not correct. It was a careless mistake to write "ferric" instead of "ferrous". It's not just about semantics. It makes a huge difference regarding what they do in biogeochemistry. Ferric iron is an oxidant. Ferrous iron is a reductant. Fortunately, it doesn't make much difference in biogeologastrotorhineurheology, and that's what really matters. So we're good.

RE: Biogeochemistry is a real thing13-03-2022 03:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:This was not correct. It was a careless mistake to write "ferric" instead of "ferrous". It's not just about semantics. It makes a huge difference regarding what they do in biogeochemistry. Ferric iron is an oxidant. Ferrous iron is a reductant. Fortunately, it doesn't make much difference in biogeologastrotorhineurheology, and that's what really matters. So we're good. --------------------------------------------------------- Oh, dear! There is a massive conspiracy to create the false impression that biogeochemistry is a real thing. For proof, simply Google it. I don't know how much money they had to spend or who they had to threaten. They got EVERYONE to go along with it. On a more serious note, paleobiogeochemistry is also a real thing. Google it. As far as semantics go, you've got bio geo and chemistry. It doesn't take a genius to wrap their head around the idea that at the interface of biology, geology, and chemistry are interactions that require understanding all three of these fields of science. It takes a lot longer to get the training, but it's worth it.
13-03-2022 03:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. -------------------------------------------------- They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did. Thought it was standard to have water thoroughly tested for contaminants, before a new well was certified. I was still a kid in the 70s, but remember a friends family had a well drilled, and had to wait. Seems odd they would go to the expense of drilling wells, when surface water was available. Wouldn't boiling the water kill the parasites? Chlorine is also a common water treatment, We are exposed to, or consume a whole lot of hazardous materials, pretty much every day. The concentration, and frequency is what causes the problems.
RE: I''ll bet it was a conspiracy13-03-2022 03:56
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	HarveyH55 wrote: sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. -------------------------------------------------- They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did. Thought it was standard to have water thoroughly tested for contaminants, before a new well was certified. I was still a kid in the 70s, but remember a friends family had a well drilled, and had to wait. Seems odd they would go to the expense of drilling wells, when surface water was available. Wouldn't boiling the water kill the parasites? Chlorine is also a common water treatment, We are exposed to, or consume a whole lot of hazardous materials, pretty much every day. The concentration, and frequency is what causes the problems. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You raise valid questions. Such things would have been so obvious, someone must have deliberately conspired to prevent their consideration. Were they TRYING to poison all those people? On the other hand, if you go back down the rabbit hole, I'll bet you can find conclusive evidence that the whole widespread arsenic poisoning in the Ganges and Mekong deltas thing was just a hoax. They hired crisis actors to pretend that people were dying. They faked all the numbers. Isn't something more than 100,000 already transparently suspicious? And they think they can just multiply that by 10 and people will buy it. Well, you know the old axiom of Nazi propaganda. The bigger and more audacious the lie, the better it sticks.
RE: better answer minus sarcasm13-03-2022 04:27
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	HarveyH55 wrote: sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. -------------------------------------------------- They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did. Thought it was standard to have water thoroughly tested for contaminants, before a new well was certified. I was still a kid in the 70s, but remember a friends family had a well drilled, and had to wait. Seems odd they would go to the expense of drilling wells, when surface water was available. Wouldn't boiling the water kill the parasites? Chlorine is also a common water treatment, We are exposed to, or consume a whole lot of hazardous materials, pretty much every day. The concentration, and frequency is what causes the problems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today, in wealthy nations such as the United States, there are indeed environmental regulations that require such testing to certify a well. In the delta backwaters of South Asia and Southeast Asia in the 1970s, regulation wasn't so strict. They didn't even have the infrastructure to do any such testing or any kind of certification process. And who could have predicted the seasonal variability in groundwater arsenic biogeochemistry? Samples from the initial wells, airlifted for testing abroad, showed no problem. That would remain true for the few samples from new wells they could afford to test. Only a small minority of wells would eventually prove to have high arsenic all year round. Many other wells that were actually tested were caught at the wrong time of year to reveal any problem. Relatively few wells could be tested. It just wasn't an option. And many of those that they did test, revealing low arsenic, would turn out to have much higher arsenic during the season when new well boring and testing was too difficult due to heavy rain. Acute arsenic poisoning is a rapid process. People show symptoms very quickly. When "agent blue" was sprayed over rice paddies of Viet Nam to kill the crops as part of the "food denial" program, people died immediately of acute arsenic poisoning. The chemical form of arsenic in herbicides and pesticides is very different than the arsenic found in groundwater. It took years of drinking the water day after day before people accumulated enough arsenic to make them sick.
RE: Viet Nam - Anthropogenic AND Natural Arsenic Poisoning13-03-2022 04:51
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?. They didn't check for arsenic. They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did. Correct. They would have found arsenic in only some wells ... and they would have discovered arsenic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Viet Nam - Anthropogenic AND Natural Arsenic Poisoning Some poor peasants in the Mekong delta got arsenic poisoning twice during their lifetime. They survived subacute arsenic poisoning when "agent blue" rained down into their water supply. Years later they got sick from arsenic again, after drinking too much of it from shallow well water. The first arsenic poisoning, arguably a war crime, was acute toxicity from highly reactive chemical forms of arsenic in anthropogenic herbicide. That herbicide didn't remain poisonous in the rice paddies for very long. The arsenic was rapidly transformed and attenuated as arsenate strongly bound to the soil. It would never hurt anybody again. The second arsenic poisoning, a tragic mistake and not an act of war, was from drinking water that historically people knew better than to use. There was no preexisting data set from shallow delta wells used for drinking water in the past. Such wells never existed before. There was very little preexisting data for delta groundwater, period. Arsenic has no taste, although the water was saltier than one might like. You don't know you are sick until years too late to imagine it was the water.
13-03-2022 05:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:The first arsenic poisoning, arguably a war crime, OK, I'll call. How can it be argued a war crime? sealover wrote:was acute toxicity from highly reactive chemical forms of arsenic in anthropogenic herbicide. What are the non-anthropogenic herbicides? sealover wrote:The second arsenic poisoning, a tragic mistake and not an act of war, was from drinking water that historically people knew better than to use. Why did they drink it then? sealover wrote:There was no preexisting data set from shallow delta wells used for drinking water in the past. Such wells never existed before. ... yet you claim that historically people knew better than to use that water.
RE: Chemical Warfare Outlawed After WWI13-03-2022 05:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The first arsenic poisoning, arguably a war crime, OK, I'll call. How can it be argued a war crime? sealover wrote:was acute toxicity from highly reactive chemical forms of arsenic in anthropogenic herbicide. What are the non-anthropogenic herbicides? sealover wrote:The second arsenic poisoning, a tragic mistake and not an act of war, was from drinking water that historically people knew better than to use. Why did they drink it then? sealover wrote:There was no preexisting data set from shallow delta wells used for drinking water in the past. Such wells never existed before. ... yet you claim that historically people knew better than to use that water. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's see. When Saddam Hussein had his military forces deliberately distribute a deadly chemical into a zone where it killed people. Some people thought that kind of thing was a war crime. Even the deliberate program to cause starvation by destroying crops with deadly chemicals might be construed as using food as a weapon. Some people think that kind of thing is war crime. General Sherman's "locust strategy" proved the effectiveness of "food denial" during the US Civil War. But there have even been attempts with coordinated international agreement to make official rules about some of this stuff. After WWI, most nations agreed that chemical weapons were totally uncool. After WWII, they even agreed to more explicit rules about what might be considered a war crime. "War Crime". It is not an oxymoron. It is just redundant. Non anthropogenic herbicides are what some plants use to kill the competition. It's called allelopathy.
RE: Is it fun to be a genius?13-03-2022 06:20
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it fun to be a genius? I can only imagine. I heard a story about someone that made it sound like it must be fun as hell. Apparently, there used to be this guy named Archimedes. I wasn't there. I don't know. But I heard this guy was a genius. They say he made a discovery one time and it was pure ecstasy. They say he jumped up out of his bathtub and ran out into the street, naked. They say that he was so high on being a genius, he didn't care if he was naked. He just wanted to hurry up and share it with the world. "Eureka!" Can you imagine how ecstatic it must be to realize that you are the first one ever to figure out some secret of nature? Must be pretty cool if it can make you feel like Archimedes did. But I wasn't there. I wouldn't know. Is it fun to be a genius?
13-03-2022 08:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:Is it fun to be a genius? I can only imagine. It's great! ... but it's not for everyone. Warmizombies are an excellent example of a class whereby intelligence just rubs them the wrong way. If you'd like to see how my half lives, start defining your terms and you'll be in for an exhilarating ride.
RE: xenobiotics - organochlorines, bromides, DDT etc.13-03-2022 08:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Is it fun to be a genius? I can only imagine. It's great! ... but it's not for everyone. Warmizombies are an excellent example of a class whereby intelligence just rubs them the wrong way. If you'd like to see how my half lives, start defining your terms and you'll be in for an exhilarating ride. Terms defined: xenobiotic is not of biological origin reductive dehalogenenation is the process by which bacteria remove atoms of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine. These halogenated organics include everything from teflon to DDT. No microorganism is capable of degrading these things for profit. It costs more to make the enzymes to degrade them and make the carbon available for oxidation than they can get from oxidizing the carbon. The stuff just hangs out in the environment for the longest time. However, if we provide the right anaerobic bacteria with a source of energy (usually carbohyrate) to do it and provide extreme hypoxia conditions, they can tear the chlorine, fluorine, bromine or iodine off the xenobiotic. The halogen is chemically reduced to chloride, fluoride, bromide, or iodide ion. The remaining carbon can later be degraded for profit by (different) aerobic bacteria when oxygen is allowed to return. Proven fact. It's already a success story, not a theory. Contracting microorganisms to do our dirty work for us offers hope for how we can detoxify xenobiotics and facilitate their degradation.
RE: and you still won't define alkalinity13-03-2022 10:08
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	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. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This was the first response I got to my very first post. I was asked to define "climate change", "climate change mitigation", and "criteria for climate change mitigation". Odd thing is, my post made no mention of "climate change" It did say a lot about alkalinity. At least half my posts have been about alkalinity. Many unsupported contrarian assertions were made about alkalinity in the posts I nearly always got in response. The righteous demand that I define my terms never ceased. But getting anyone to define the term "alkalinity" has resulted in evasion time after time. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. It is impossible to make even a ball park estimate of the alkalinity of a solution if the only available data is pH.
RE: I'm busted! I did say "climate change"13-03-2022 10:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	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 was wrong. It looks like I did use the words "climate change" in the very first sentence. I also see five places throughout where the word "alkalinity" appears. The term "sulfate reduction" appears repeatedly. There is no need to have an agreed upon definition for "climate change" to be able to discuss the biogeochemistry of sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. On the other hand, without the ability to define terms such as sulfate reduction and alkalinity, one wouldn't even know what they are criticizing. Maybe they thought we were worried that the ocean pH might drop below 7? No credible scientist would even bother arguing why that couldn't happen. It's like having to explain why you don't have to worry you might float off into space if you step off your front porch. It's all about the alkalinity. Please learn what it is before you try to lecture me about it. It's all such basic textbook stuff, the truth is sort of held to be self evident.
13-03-2022 16:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:This was the first response I got to my very first post. Nope, the following are the first two responses to your very first post: duncan61 wrote: The PH at Trigg beach is 8.3 as it is supposed to be.Where is it changing where you are IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: sealover wrote:eI was asked to define "climate change", "climate change mitigation", and "criteria for climate change mitigation". Nope. You were simply exposed as being a liar and being scientifically illiterate right out of the starting gate.
13-03-2022 16:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:Terms defined: I see that you don't quite get how honest discussion is supposed to work. Pro Tip: When someone politely requests that you define certain terms that you are using, you really should define the requested terms, not other arbitrarily-selected terms that were not requested, and not refuse altogether to define the requested terms while providing accompanying lame excuses.
13-03-2022 17:40
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	About 80% of the planet surface is water. Much of that it ocean, which go very deep. Not my field, but pretty sure there are still place where the depth is still unknown. How would you go about measuring ocean pH, when you don't even know the total volume, or have the capacity to take samples to represent the entire volume? Samples you take close to shore, near human activity, is going to be much different from miles of shore, thousands of feet below the surface. Obviously, it's cheap and convenient to take samples close to shore, where people live and work. Even easier, when other people take samples to monitor waste materials they are dumping in the ocean. Most samples are taken to monitor conditions of marine life (seafood industry). Of course, climate change is all about averages, which are often biased to sell a product. Basically, you can always find data, that supports a product you want to sell, even if it's total crap, and you know it. Average pH, is really just from mostly industrial coastal areas, but implied it represents the entire ocean. But, of course all kinds of chemicals and minerals are dumped into the oceans, and always have. Water is one of the main causes of erosion. It rains, it shows, it seeps into rocks, and soil. Freezes, expands, thaws and runs off, taking a lot of stuff with it, into rivers and streams. Which carry it to the oceans. Along with some bad crap, there is also mostly good things that plants and animals need. Nature's fertilizer... There is no filters, or control over what trickles down from the mountains. Some years, it'll be better than others. Still not a huge volume, compared to all the water in the oceans.

RE: Chemistry fun13-03-2022 17:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Terms defined: I see that you don't quite get how honest discussion is supposed to work. Pro Tip: When someone politely requests that you define certain terms that you are using, you really should define the requested terms, not other arbitrarily-selected terms that were not requested, and not refuse altogether to define the requested terms while providing accompanying lame excuses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHEMISTRY FUN (liar, liar, pants on fire) I made a solution in the laboratory that had pH less than zero. Am I lying? No. It was easy. I made a solution of 1.5 N nitric acid. Do the math. pH is the negative log of the hydrogen ion activity. What is the negative log of that concentration? It's easier if it's just a 1 N solution. That would be 10 to the zero power. But then my pH would be exactly zero. It was 1.5 N with pH less than zero. What is the alkalinity of a pH 7 solution? No way to tell from that alone. You'll have to give me more info. But I can tell you about a pH 4.5 solution with extremely high alkalinity. Most carboxylic organic acids have a pKa near about 4.5. At least the ones I used as chelating agents. This means that at pH 4.5, half the acid is protonated form, and the other half is just organic anion. Organic anions have acid neutralizing capacity, which is the same as alkalinity. If I start with a 1 molar solution of vitamin C and adjust it to pH 4.5, what is the alkalinity? 0.5 moles per liter. Off the scale compared to groundwater. Should I translate that alkalinity into calcium carbonate equivalents, grams per liter? Only if I have to write a government report.
13-03-2022 21:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:I made a solution in the laboratory that had pH less than zero. Am I lying? No. It was easy. Are you telling me that it all comes down to definitions? Well I'll be. I should just shut my mouth and let you define all your terms. Please go ahead. The floor is yours.
RE: XENOBIOTICS include PLASTIC14-03-2022 00:52
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Is it fun to be a genius? I can only imagine. It's great! ... but it's not for everyone. Warmizombies are an excellent example of a class whereby intelligence just rubs them the wrong way. If you'd like to see how my half lives, start defining your terms and you'll be in for an exhilarating ride. Terms defined: xenobiotic is not of biological origin reductive dehalogenenation is the process by which bacteria remove atoms of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine. These halogenated organics include everything from teflon to DDT. No microorganism is capable of degrading these things for profit. It costs more to make the enzymes to degrade them and make the carbon available for oxidation than they can get from oxidizing the carbon. The stuff just hangs out in the environment for the longest time. However, if we provide the right anaerobic bacteria with a source of energy (usually carbohyrate) to do it and provide extreme hypoxia conditions, they can tear the chlorine, fluorine, bromine or iodine off the xenobiotic. The halogen is chemically reduced to chloride, fluoride, bromide, or iodide ion. The remaining carbon can later be degraded for profit by (different) aerobic bacteria when oxygen is allowed to return. Proven fact. It's already a success story, not a theory. Contracting microorganisms to do our dirty work for us offers hope for how we can detoxify xenobiotics and facilitate their degradation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll probably have to try this one again when there are more people visiting the thread. XENOBIOTICS include PLASTIC. We synthesized a lot of materials that no organism ever evolved to degrade. Many bacteria and fungi produce the right kind of enzymes, or are capable of carrying out detoxifying redox reactions, but cannot degrade xenobiotics unless they are supplied. But it can be as simple and flooding the soil with beer brewery waste to create extreme low oxygen with an energy source for reductive dehalogenation and other xenobiotic degradation reactions. And we can use a model from Mother Nature. Chitin degradation. 3-way symbiosis: Plant-fungi-bacteria. Chitin is what arthropod (insects, etc.) exoskeletons are made of. There is a lot of it in soil communities. It is a great source of nitrogen, but it's tough to degrade. Some bacteria make enzymes that can degrade chitin. But they can't make a living at it. They can tear apart the chitin to mobilize the nitrogen. They could then oxidize the remaining organic carbon. But there's no profit in it. Almost all plants have symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Plants provide organic carbon to the fungi. The fungi with its extensive network of fine hyphae, contacts about 50 times as much soil surface area as the roots of its plant partner. The fungal hyphae can reach far and wide, using the food provided by the plant. They can then transfer to the plant nutrients acquired from the soil. Fungi are biochemical wizards are far as producing enzymes to degrade decomposing organic matter. But chitin is a tough nut to crack even for a fungi. Besides, many fungi include chitin in their own structure. Producing a self-digesting enzyme is hazardous. Bacteria can degrade chitin, but it's generally not worth it. Unless they are truly starving for nitrogen. But let's connect the three to see the model nature provides for degrading xenobiotics. The tree gives its mycorrhizal fungi some organic carbon. Go get me some nitrogen. The fungi has a monolayer of bacteria on the tips of its hyphae. The fungi gives some of the organic carbon it got from the tree and gives it to the bacteria. Go get me some nitrogen. The bacteria produces chitinase. Just far enough away from the fungi not to digest it too. Soil chitin is degraded by the chitinase from the bacteria. The mycorrhizal fungi pick up the nitrogen mobilized by the bacteria and pass it back up to the tree. We can use those guys to break down things besides chitin. We can selectively breed bacteria to degrade things that Mother Nature has never seen before. Maybe even throw in a little genetic engineering.
RE: What plastic?14-03-2022 01:11
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: And we can use a model from Mother Nature. Chitin degradation. 3-way symbiosis: Plant-fungi-bacteria. Chitin is what arthropod (insects, etc.) exoskeletons are made of. There is a lot of it in soil communities. It is a great source of nitrogen, but it's tough to degrade. Some bacteria make enzymes that can degrade chitin. But they can't make a living at it. They can tear apart the chitin to mobilize the nitrogen. They could then oxidize the remaining organic carbon. But there's no profit in it. Almost all plants have symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Plants provide organic carbon to the fungi. The fungi with its extensive network of fine hyphae, contacts about 50 times as much soil surface area as the roots of its plant partner. The fungal hyphae can reach far and wide, using the food provided by the plant. They can then transfer to the plant nutrients acquired from the soil. Fungi are biochemical wizards are far as producing enzymes to degrade decomposing organic matter. But chitin is a tough nut to crack even for a fungi. Besides, many fungi include chitin in their own structure. Producing a self-digesting enzyme is hazardous. Bacteria can degrade chitin, but it's generally not worth it. Unless they are truly starving for nitrogen. But let's connect the three to see the model nature provides for degrading xenobiotics. The tree gives its mycorrhizal fungi some organic carbon. Go get me some nitrogen. The fungi has a monolayer of bacteria on the tips of its hyphae. The fungi gives some of the organic carbon it got from the tree and gives it to the bacteria. Go get me some nitrogen. The bacteria produces chitinase. Just far enough away from the fungi not to digest it too. Soil chitin is degraded by the chitinase from the bacteria. The mycorrhizal fungi pick up the nitrogen mobilized by the bacteria and pass it back up to the tree. We can use those guys to break down things besides chitin. We can selectively breed bacteria to degrade things that Mother Nature has never seen before. Maybe even throw in a little genetic engineering. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are some other resident science experts who may want to take the next obvious step in this discussion. Why do you hate plastic? What platic?
14-03-2022 01:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:XENOBIOTICS include PLASTIC. Are you saying that "xenobiotics" is just another word invented to make "anthropogenic" appear as though it is not simply a religious doctinal concept of Global Warming but a fully developed branch of science? "Xenobiotics" means "evil, vile product of human activity that causes Climate Change" right? There is no such thing as a "good" xenobiotic, right? sealover wrote:We synthesized a lot of materials that no organism ever evolved to degrade. Would you mind explaining to the board why belief in Darwin's theory of evolution is necessary in order for your subject matter to be fully understood? sealover wrote:Many bacteria and fungi produce the right kind of enzymes, or are capable of carrying out detoxifying redox reactions, but cannot degrade xenobiotics unless they are supplied. What does this mean? Are you saying that anthropogenic materials are so evil that bacteria and fungi are effectively prevented from degrading them via astral projection? sealover wrote:But it can be as simple and flooding the soil with beer brewery waste to create extreme low oxygen with an energy source for reductive dehalogenation and other xenobiotic degradation reactions. Beer brewery waste will reenable the astral projection? sealover wrote:And we can use a model from Mother Nature. Chitin degradation. I don't want my chitin degraded. I want my mushrooms just right when I put them in my lasagna. Seriously, please explain to these neaderthalls why Darwin's theory is a "must- believe". I mean, it's a fact, right?
RE: no hecklers in the peanut gallery14-03-2022 01:58
sealover ★★★★☆ (1734)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:XENOBIOTICS include PLASTIC. Are you saying that "xenobiotics" is just another word invented to make "anthropogenic" appear as though it is not simply a religious doctinal concept of Global Warming but a fully developed branch of science? "Xenobiotics" means "evil, vile product of human activity that causes Climate Change" right? There is no such thing as a "good" xenobiotic, right? sealover wrote:We synthesized a lot of materials that no organism ever evolved to degrade. Would you mind explaining to the board why belief in Darwin's theory of evolution is necessary in order for your subject matter to be fully understood? sealover wrote:Many bacteria and fungi produce the right kind of enzymes, or are capable of carrying out detoxifying redox reactions, but cannot degrade xenobiotics unless they are supplied. What does this mean? Are you saying that anthropogenic materials are so evil that bacteria and fungi are effectively prevented from degrading them via astral projection? sealover wrote:But it can be as simple and flooding the soil with beer brewery waste to create extreme low oxygen with an energy source for reductive dehalogenation and other xenobiotic degradation reactions. Beer brewery waste will reenable the astral projection? sealover wrote:And we can use a model from Mother Nature. Chitin degradation. I don't want my chitin degraded. I want my mushrooms just right when I put them in my lasagna. Seriously, please explain to these neaderthalls why Darwin's theory is a "must- believe". I mean, it's a fact, right? ----------------------------------------------------------- I miss speaking at scientific conferences. They don't allow any hecklers in the peanut gallery
14-03-2022 02:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Is it fun to be a genius? I can only imagine. It's great! ... but it's not for everyone. Warmizombies are an excellent example of a class whereby intelligence just rubs them the wrong way. If you'd like to see how my half lives, start defining your terms and you'll be in for an exhilarating ride. Terms defined: xenobiotic is not of biological origin So? sealover wrote: reductive dehalogenenation is the process by which bacteria remove atoms of chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or iodine. Why are bacteria required? sealover wrote: These halogenated organics include everything from teflon to DDT. So? sealover wrote: No microorganism is capable of degrading these things for profit. Why is bacteria required? sealover wrote: It costs more to make the enzymes to degrade them and make the carbon available for oxidation than they can get from oxidizing the carbon. Why are enzymes required? sealover wrote: The stuff just hangs out in the environment for the longest time. What 'stuff'. Define this 'stuff'. sealover wrote: However, if we provide the right anaerobic bacteria with a source of energy (usually carbohyrate) to do it and provide extreme hypoxia conditions, they can tear the chlorine, fluorine, bromine or iodine off the xenobiotic. Xenobiotic is not a substance or a molecule. You are apparently ignoring your own definition. sealover wrote: The halogen is chemically reduced to chloride, fluoride, bromide, or iodide ion. The remaining carbon can later be degraded for profit by (different) aerobic bacteria when oxygen is allowed to return. Not a reduction. When was oxygen not allowed to return? Return from where? Mars? sealover wrote: Proven fact. Learn what 'fact' means. A fact is not a proof. Attempted proof by buzzword. sealover wrote: It's already a success story, not a theory. What is? sealover wrote: Contracting microorganisms to do our dirty work for us offers hope for how we can detoxify xenobiotics and facilitate their degradation. Now a 'xenobiotic' is toxic???? 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
14-03-2022 02:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This was the first response I got to my very first post. I was asked to define "climate change", "climate change mitigation", and "criteria for climate change mitigation". Define them. You still haven't defined them. sealover wrote: Odd thing is, my post made no mention of "climate change" Denial of self argument fallacy. sealover wrote: It did say a lot about alkalinity. Another meaningless buzzword from you. sealover wrote: At least half my posts have been about alkalinity. So what? sealover wrote: Many unsupported contrarian assertions were made about alkalinity in the posts I nearly always got in response. Try English. It works better. sealover wrote: The righteous demand that I define my terms never ceased. So you would rather remain unrighteous and never define your terms. Gotit. sealover wrote: But getting anyone to define the term "alkalinity" has resulted in evasion time after time. YOU are the one using the term. YOU need to define YOUR terms. Inversion fallacy. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. Wouldn't that be 'alkalinity is acidinity neutralizing capacinity'? How do you neutralize an acid? It acid is an acid. H2SO4, for example, is still H2SO4. sealover wrote: It is impossible to make even a ball park estimate of the alkalinity of a solution if the only available data is pH. So what is 'alkalinity'? 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
14-03-2022 02:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (22470)	sealover wrote: 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 was wrong. It looks like I did use the words "climate change" in the very first sentence. Define 'climate change'. sealover wrote: I also see five places throughout where the word "alkalinity" appears. Define 'alkalinity'. sealover wrote: The term "sulfate reduction" appears repeatedly. You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced. sealover wrote: There is no need to have an agreed upon definition for "climate change" to be able to discuss the biogeochemistry of sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced. You cannot generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: On the other hand, without the ability to define terms such as sulfate reduction and alkalinity, one wouldn't even know what they are criticizing. So you have a problem. You can't criticize what you can't define. sealover wrote: Maybe they thought we were worried that the ocean pH might drop below 7? Why would it? sealover wrote: No credible scientist would even bother arguing why that couldn't happen. You don't get to speak for all scientists, nor determine who is 'credible'. You are not the king. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: It's like having to explain why you don't have to worry you might float off into space if you step off your front porch. Depends on where your front porch is, doesn't it? sealover wrote: It's all about the alkalinity. Alkalinity has something to do with porches? sealover wrote: Please learn what it is before you try to lecture me about it. Lecture what? YOU are the only one making any claims using this buzzword. sealover wrote: It's all such basic textbook stuff, the truth is sort of held to be self evident. Nope. You can't define a buzzword with itself either. 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
14-03-2022 02:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	sealover wrote:I miss speaking at scientific conferences. ... because you enjoy the privacy of being in a room by yourself. sealover wrote:They don't allow any hecklers in the peanut gallery They don't allow hecklers when you are the only one in the room. Have you ever wondered why your speaking engagements are all scheduled for the two days prior to the official commencement of the conference?

Page 2 of 12

Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean	522	15-10-2024 07:49
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