Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification
| 24-05-2024 19:26 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
keepit, if you can lower your blood pressure by half, you'll reduce your CO2 footprint. |
| 24-05-2024 19:52 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning top of page 10, and continuing to page 11. It includes extensive discussion of paleobiogeochemistry as well as applied biogeochemistry for environmental remediation. 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, bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and carbonate ion, CO3(2-), rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction. "sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist who performed extensive research on wetland soil and groundwater of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning top of page 10 SEE 5 OTHER THREADS ABOUT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CHANGE |
| 24-05-2024 22:43 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22880) |
Carbon isn't carbon dioxide. Fossils aren't used as fuel. You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such chemical as 'sulfate'. Carbon isn't organic. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Your religion is not science. Stop spamming. |
| 09-09-2024 01:10 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
sealover wrote: Alkalinity entering the sea in surface water versus submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) Alkalinity from the land enters the sea at the coastline. Alkalinity is dissolved in water, entering the sea as surface water river flow or submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). At some entry points, alkalinity comes in almost entirely as surface water. For example, a seaside cliff of impermeable bedrock where a creek cascades down to the ocean. At other entry points, alkalinity comes in predominantly as SGD. For example, the wetland where a river delta meets the sea. Some of the water from that delta, and the alkalinity it carries, enters the sea in the surface water river flow. Most of the water from that delta, and the alkalinity it carries, enters the sea as SGD. SGD flows underground, along channels in more permeable sandy layers that lay parallel to the surface water flow. Below sea level at the coastline, SGD seeps from land into the ocean's water. The surface water flowing from land to sea carries the products of chemical oxidation. The oxygen-rich atmosphere facilitates oxidation reactions, such as the oxidation of sulfide to sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate). Surface water carries this sulfuric acid to the sea. SGD flowing from land to sea carries the products of chemical reduction. The low-oxygen, organic-carbon-rich conditions beneath the surface of the wetland facilitate reduction reactions. Reduction of sulfate to sulfide by microorganisms transforms organic carbon into alkalinity, in the form of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. SGD carries this alkalinity, in LARGE amounts, from land to sea. In contrast, alkalinity in surface water that is the product of erosion... Some have claimed that so much alkaline material is eroded off the land into the sea that it makes the sea "very alkaline" (at pH 8.2?).. It is negligible. |
| 09-09-2024 02:29 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
sealover wrote:sealover wrote: Intellectual honesty test. Calling the input of acid neutralizing material from land to sea via erosion "negligible" was not intellectually honest. It was even a bit childish, meant as a "dig" at a troll who credits erosion for keeping the ocean "very alkaline" So, let's be honest about what the land supplies to the sea, via erosion, that neutralizes ocean "acidification" The erosion of limestone absolutely can supply suspended particles of calcium carbonate which enter the sea during erosion events. The erosion of silicates of all kinds can similarly supply acid neutralizing capacity as suspended particles enter the sea during erosion. There is a LOT of discussion about an approach to address ocean acidification that, in my mind, is very misguided. Funding has already begun for research and field tests, etc. So, exactly how much limestone would we have to mine, grind, and somehow deliver to the sea to have any discernable impact on the problem? How many million gigatons of silicate rock would we have to mine, grind, and somehow deliver to the sea to make any difference? Problem is, the answer is just way too many. Erosion helps a bit, delivering some acid neutralizing material. But it is kind of a drop in the bucket for a sea so big. |
| 09-09-2024 02:52 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14932) |
sealover wrote: So, exactly how much limestone would we have to mine, grind, and somehow deliver to the sea to have any discernable impact on the problem? You were doing reasonably well up to this point, but then you skipped over all math in order to jump to a completely unsupported conclusion: sealover wrote: Problem is, the answer is just way too many. Every day, many gigatons of erosion find their way into the ocean, representing accumulation, with no corresponding accumulation of any acid. CO2 does form carbonic acid, but through evaporation, it is a cycle, not an accumulation. No one knows if the average pH of the ocean is even changing. Nobody, not even the Navy Research Labs, has measured the ocean's average pH value to any meaningful accuracy. No average measurement means no knowledge of whether the average is even changing. |
| 09-09-2024 08:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: There is no significant carbon in the atmosphere. sealover wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. sealover wrote: It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Yet it happens all the time. sealover wrote: Nature does. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. No such oxidant. sealover wrote: Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: Magick 'chemicals' that don't exist are not energy. sealover wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide is not carbon. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'geoengineering'. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not water. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not water. sealover wrote: Go learn hydraulics. sealover wrote: Oxidation is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: No significant sulfuric acid affects the sea. sealover wrote: Reduction is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: You obviously don't know anything about redox chemistry. sealover wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not carbon. sealover wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Go learn hydraulics, sealover wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Erosion is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Alkaline is not a chemical. A buzzword has no pH. 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 |
| 09-09-2024 18:22 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
"The sentence 'You cannot acidify an alkaline' is absolutely true and totally bitch-slaps you and your stupidity." - IBdaMann And my stupidity keeps getting bitch-slapped, over and over, by the same sentence. So, with the help of a REAL chemist, maybe we can get to the bottom of the "basicity is exponential" thing, because that explains something important. Into the Night, is IBdaMann correct that "basicity is exponential"? Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: |
| 09-09-2024 19:53 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
Im a BM wrote: Edited on 09-09-2024 20:06 |
| 10-09-2024 01:02 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: "The sentence 'You cannot acidify an alkaline' is absolutely true and totally bitch-slaps you and your stupidity." - IBdaMann And my stupidity keeps getting bitch-slapped, over and over, by the same sentence. So, with the help of a REAL chemist, maybe we can get to the bottom of the "basicity is exponential" thing, because that explains something important. Into the Night, is IBdaMann correct that "basicity is exponential"? Let's see. The pH scale is definitely logarithmic. The pOH scale is also logarithmic. To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-). Some chemists call this the "basicity scale" But there must be another definition for "basicity" that is actually EXPONENTIAL. Okay, one more correction: pH is the NEGATIVE logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration. (actually hydrogen ion ACTIVITY, which isn't always equal to concentration, but..) And pOH is the NEGATIVE logarithm of hydroxide ion activity. Either way, pOH or pH, 7 is in the middle of the scale. Either scale is equally logarithmic. One is just the upside version of the other. So, in the bizarre equation "Magnitude of Effect" = Delta(solution) / Delta pH" If "Delta(solution)" was the "basicity" thing, then it means Delta pOH And Delta pOH cancels out Delta pH pretty exactly for the "Magnitude of Effect" So, is basicity exponential? Or does "basicity" just cause exponential "change to the acid"? Because "water itself is a buffer"? Or we could leap frog to the next level, because the REAL issue is the "change to the acid" When you add one drop of acid to a liter of pure water, and another drop of acid to a liter of sea water the "change to the acid" will be more pronounced in the sea water. This is actually true. The change to the CARBONIC acid in the sea water will be more pronounced than the change to the carbonic acid in the pure water. The pure water isn't pure if it has any carbonic acid in it. Pure water exposed to the atmosphere develops pH about 5.6 from the carbonic acid that forms from the carbon dioxide absorbed. Think about it, plain water exposed to air is pH 5.6 Sea water is pH 8.2 Farther from pH 7, plain water is more ACIDIC than sea water is ALKALINE Alkaline is an adjective, but it also quantitative. The further from pH 7, the more alkaline. Sea water is slightly alkaline. When you drink plain water, does the corrosive acidity burn your mouth? It is farther to the acid of neutral than sea water is to the alkaline side. Any claim that the ocean is "very alkaline" displays ignorance of chemistry. So, "change to the acid" The pure water contains no carbonic acid to begin with. Adding one drop of acid to pure water causes no change to the carbonic acid. The sea water does contain carbonic acid to begin with. Adding the drop of acid causes a change to the carbonic acid in sea water. It makes it reproduce! Suddenly, you get MORE carbonic acid in the sample! I thought we were adding a drop of strong hydrochloric acid... What happened? There were bicarbonate ions in the sample. The bicarbonate ions buffered against the pH change by becoming protonated. HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 CARBONIC ACID Okay, so adding a drop of acid to sea water actually created more carbonic acid. But what else happened? The equilibrium balance of the carbonate system shifted. Bicarbonate ions had been removed from solution as they became carbonic acid. There was a deficit of bicarbonate ion now, and something has to give. Carbonate ions are forced to accept protons and become bicarbonate ions to restore the balance. CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- Adding that one drop of acid to the sea water barely had a discernable impact on the pH, as bicarbonate ion buffered against pH change. But it certainly caused a "change to the acid", as its concentration of carbonic acid increased. It also had a change to the carbonate ions, as their concentration decreased. And that is what ocean "acidification" is all about. |
| 10-09-2024 02:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
Im a BM wrote: Your problem. Im a BM wrote: There is no pOH scale. Im a BM wrote: There is no pOH scale. Learn what pH is. Im a BM wrote: There is only one scale. Im a BM wrote: There is no pOH scale. Im a BM wrote: An alkaline is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: RQAA. Im a BM wrote: Seawater is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: Seawater is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: Tense problem. Word games won't work. Attempted proof by contrivance. Im a BM wrote: What carbon dioxide? Void unit. Argument from randU fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Plain water has a pH of 7. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. Im a BM wrote: Plain water has a pH of 7. Im a BM wrote: Nope. It may be acid or alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Seawater is alkaline. There is no unit called 'slightly'. Im a BM wrote: Water isn't an acid. Im a BM wrote: Word games won't work, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. It has no pH. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Seawater is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: 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 |
| 10-09-2024 03:12 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning top of page 10, and continuing to page 11. It includes extensive discussion of paleobiogeochemistry as well as applied biogeochemistry for environmental remediation. 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, bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and carbonate ion, CO3(2-), rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction. "sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist who performed extensive research on wetland soil and groundwater of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning top of page 10 SEE 5 OTHER THREADS ABOUT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CHANGE |
| 10-09-2024 03:14 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
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.[/quote] Alkalinity entering the sea in surface water versus submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) Alkalinity from the land enters the sea at the coastline. Alkalinity is dissolved in water, entering the sea as surface water river flow or submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). At some entry points, alkalinity comes in almost entirely as surface water. For example, a seaside cliff of impermeable bedrock where a creek cascades down to the ocean. At other entry points, alkalinity comes in predominantly as SGD. For example, the wetland where a river delta meets the sea. Some of the water from that delta, and the alkalinity it carries, enters the sea in the surface water river flow. Most of the water from that delta, and the alkalinity it carries, enters the sea as SGD. SGD flows underground, along channels in more permeable sandy layers that lay parallel to the surface water flow. Below sea level at the coastline, SGD seeps from land into the ocean's water. The surface water flowing from land to sea carries the products of chemical oxidation. The oxygen-rich atmosphere facilitates oxidation reactions, such as the oxidation of sulfide to sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate). Surface water carries this sulfuric acid to the sea. SGD flowing from land to sea carries the products of chemical reduction. The low-oxygen, organic-carbon-rich conditions beneath the surface of the wetland facilitate reduction reactions. Reduction of sulfate to sulfide by microorganisms transforms organic carbon into alkalinity, in the form of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. SGD carries this alkalinity, in LARGE amounts, from land to sea. |
| 10-09-2024 03:19 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
"The sentence 'You cannot acidify an alkaline' is absolutely true and totally bitch-slaps you and your stupidity." - IBdaMann And my stupidity keeps getting bitch-slapped, over and over, by the same sentence. So, with the help of a REAL chemist, maybe we can get to the bottom of the "basicity is exponential" thing, because that explains something important. Into the Night, is IBdaMann correct that "basicity is exponential"? Let's see. The pH scale is definitely logarithmic. The pOH scale is also logarithmic. To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-). Some chemists call this the "basicity scale" But there must be another definition for "basicity" that is actually EXPONENTIAL. Okay, one more correction: pH is the NEGATIVE logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration. (actually hydrogen ion ACTIVITY, which isn't always equal to concentration, but..) And pOH is the NEGATIVE logarithm of hydroxide ion activity. Either way, pOH or pH, 7 is in the middle of the scale. Either scale is equally logarithmic. One is just the upside version of the other. So, in the bizarre equation "Magnitude of Effect" = Delta(solution) / Delta pH" If "Delta(solution)" was the "basicity" thing, then it means Delta pOH And Delta pOH cancels out Delta pH pretty exactly for the "Magnitude of Effect" So, is basicity exponential? Or does "basicity" just cause exponential "change to the acid"? Because "water itself is a buffer"? Or we could leap frog to the next level, because the REAL issue is the "change to the acid" When you add one drop of acid to a liter of pure water, and another drop of acid to a liter of sea water the "change to the acid" will be more pronounced in the sea water. This is actually true. The change to the CARBONIC acid in the sea water will be more pronounced than the change to the carbonic acid in the pure water. The pure water isn't pure if it has any carbonic acid in it. Pure water exposed to the atmosphere develops pH about 5.6 from the carbonic acid that forms from the carbon dioxide absorbed. Think about it, plain water exposed to air is pH 5.6 Sea water is pH 8.2 Farther from pH 7, plain water is more ACIDIC than sea water is ALKALINE Alkaline is an adjective, but it also quantitative. The further from pH 7, the more alkaline. Sea water is slightly alkaline. When you drink plain water, does the corrosive acidity burn your mouth? It is farther to the acid of neutral than sea water is to the alkaline side. Any claim that the ocean is "very alkaline" displays ignorance of chemistry. So, "change to the acid" The pure water contains no carbonic acid to begin with. Adding one drop of acid to pure water causes no change to the carbonic acid. The sea water does contain carbonic acid to begin with. Adding the drop of acid causes a change to the carbonic acid in sea water. It makes it reproduce! Suddenly, you get MORE carbonic acid in the sample! I thought we were adding a drop of strong hydrochloric acid... What happened? There were bicarbonate ions in the sample. The bicarbonate ions buffered against the pH change by becoming protonated. HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 CARBONIC ACID Okay, so adding a drop of acid to sea water actually created more carbonic acid. But what else happened? The equilibrium balance of the carbonate system shifted. Bicarbonate ions had been removed from solution as they became carbonic acid. There was a deficit of bicarbonate ion now, and something has to give. Carbonate ions are forced to accept protons and become bicarbonate ions to restore the balance. CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- Adding that one drop of acid to the sea water barely had a discernable impact on the pH, as bicarbonate ion buffered against pH change. But it certainly caused a "change to the acid", as its concentration of carbonic acid increased. It also had a change to the carbonate ions, as their concentration decreased. And that is what ocean "acidification" is doing. More carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has created more carbonic acid than before in sea water. To maintain equilibrium in the carbonate buffer system, the concentration of dissolved carbonate ions in sea water is diminished. Without adequate carbonate ion bioavailability to shell forming organisms, formation of calcium carbonate shell is impeded. Its making life very difficult for shellfish, among others. |
| 10-09-2024 04:47 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (3056) |
sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) This is a HUGE step for you! Congratulations! Can we also expect to see your definition of climate change in the near future? I look forward to it because once we know what you are talking about, we can get crackin on solving this huge issue that weighs so heavily on current and future generations. Eagerly waiting!... |
| RE: Climate change versus inventing a new noun10-09-2024 05:30 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) When I write "climate change", I am not introducing a new term into the discussion. Nor am I using some relatively new jargon that other scientists are beginning to adopt, but many haven't heard about yet. There is no need for me to offer a definition for a term that so many other scientists have been using in a consistent way with an agreed upon meaning. On the other hand, if I want to be the first one to use the term "alkaline" with the understanding that it is actually a NOUN... I've got some explaining to do. Just for fun, I Googled "..an alkaline" to see if anyone besides Into the Night thinks it might mean something that qualifies as a noun. "..an alkaline diet.." "..an alkaline pH.." There are thousands, but going through the first few dozen, I can't see where it ever gets used as anything other than an adjective. Every dictionary I know of defines it as an adjective, and does not offer any noun as another meaning for the term. So, if Into the Night wants to write "You cannot acidify an alkaline." one more time, maybe, just this once... DEFINE YOUR TERMS! In THIS case, it is a very legitimate criticism. |
| 10-09-2024 07:40 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932) |
sealover wrote: Let's see. The pH scale is definitely logarithmic. The pH value is the logarithm, and the inverse , i.e. acidity/basicity is the exponential. How would you prefer this be expressed? Let me know and I'll define my term for you in exactly your preferred terms. If you have two equivalent beakers filled half way with a base, and in one you fill the remainder with a pH 6 solution and in the other you pour a pH 5 solution, the pH 5 solution will have an exponentially greater neutralizing effect than the pH 6 solution, not a merely linearly greater neutralizing effect, and certainly not a logarithmically greater neutralizing effect. sealover wrote: The pOH scale is also logarithmic. ... and its inverse is also exponential. If you have two equivalent beakers filled half way with an acid, and in one you fill the remainder with a pH 8 solution and in the other you pour a pH 9 solution, the pH 9 solution will have an exponentially greater neutralizing effect than the pH 8 solution, not a merely linearly greater neutralizing effect, and certainly not a logarithmically greater neutralizing effect. Let me know how you would prefer this concept be expressed and I'll go with that. |
| 10-09-2024 14:12 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
Allow me to refresh your memory: I wrote, "If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH." This actually describes a case where ACIDITY IS EXPONENTIAL. The pure water is completely unbuffered against pH change, having less than 1/2000 as much alkalinity (i.e. acid neutralizing capacity) as sea water. The "exponential acidity" effect applied upon addition of acid. Add a drop of BASE instead of ACID to pure water, and you will see how "basicity is exponential". But the term "buffer" means it can resist pH change, to prevent runaway basicity or acidity upon addition of acid or base. Exponential effects are buffered in sea water. You see very very little drop in pH upon adding one drop of acid to one liter of sea water. TO FURTHER REFRESH YOUR MEMORY sealover: If I take one liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. IBdaMann: So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0), and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." This was the "correct" answer, pointing out my error. I was wrong to claim that one would see a huge drop in pH or exponential acidity effect on the unbuffered pure water. The acid would have a more pronounced impact on the sea water. And an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH 0.0 Somebody does NOT understand the pH scale, apparently. Perhaps out of the misguided belief that "water itself is a buffer for acid", no attempt was made to account for any role of carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, or carbonate ion. No mention even of the word "buffer". But instead of admitting "oops! I guess that the pH really WILL show a huge drop when acid is added to (unbuffered) pure water. My bad." No, that is not the IBdaMann way. Paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of convoluted obfuscations to insist that somehow the critique ("correcting" my answer) made perfect chemistry sense. If the guy spent 1/10 as much time learning new facts, instead of denying facts they already tried to teach him, he might know something of value. But he can't even wrap his head around the fact that when millions of chemists use the term "organic carbon", they understand what it means. Because it really does mean something that makes perfect sense to them. (buzzword! there's no such thing!) Yeah, keep telling yourself that. IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote: Let's see. The pH scale is definitely logarithmic. Edited on 10-09-2024 14:18 |
| 10-09-2024 20:23 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: Stop spamming. [b]sealover wrote: No such thing as 'biogeochemistry' or 'paleobiogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: There is no significant carbon in the atmosphere. sealover wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. You can't acidify an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. 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 |
| 10-09-2024 20:24 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: Stop spamming. 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 |
| 10-09-2024 23:04 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: I'll stop spamming as soon as you stop TROLLING. More than 22,000 posts to accomplish WHAT? What do you even get out of it that makes it worthwhile to continue? |
| 11-09-2024 03:49 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Stop whining. Stop spamming. 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 |
| 11-09-2024 09:23 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) When I write "climate change", I am not introducing a new term into the discussion. Nor am I using some relatively new jargon that other scientists are beginning to adopt, but many haven't heard about yet. There is no need for me to offer a definition for a term that so many other scientists have been using in a consistent way with an agreed upon meaning. On the other hand, if I want to be the first one to use the term "alkaline" with the understanding that it is actually a NOUN... I've got some explaining to do. Just for fun, I Googled "..an alkaline" to see if anyone besides Into the Night thinks it might mean something that qualifies as a noun. "..an alkaline diet.." "..an alkaline pH.." There are thousands, but going through the first few dozen, I can't see where it ever gets used as anything other than an adjective. Every dictionary I know of defines it as an adjective, and does not offer any noun as another meaning for the term. So, if Into the Night wants to write "You cannot acidify an alkaline." one more time, maybe, just this once... DEFINE YOUR TERMS! In THIS case, it is a very legitimate criticism. Of course, his only reply will be "RQAA" or "Stop spamming." |
| 11-09-2024 10:16 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: Climate is not a branch of science. Im a BM wrote: None. You simply don't know what it means. Im a BM wrote: Dictionaries don't define any word or define any grammar. Neither does Google. Google is not God. A dictionary is not God. False authority fallacies. Im a BM wrote: RQAA Im a BM wrote: No, it's whining, because you don't understand English. Im a BM wrote: Bingo. 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 |
| 11-09-2024 20:05 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
"You cannot acidify an alkaline." = meaningless sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline SUBSTANCE" = INCORRECT but comprehensible Perhaps what Parrot Boy has been trying to say, in his own grammatically incorrect way, is that "You cannot acidify an alkaline substance" This is a rebuttal to an "argument" that is not being made. Personally, I usually write ocean "acidification", to avoid the confusing connotations. It is scientifically correct to call any DECREASE IN pH "acidification". But the CONNOTATION confuses amateur chemists and laymen. It SEEMS TO IMPLY that the pH has actually gone below 7, when it actually means that the pH has decreased from whatever it was before. No environmental scientists are claiming that the pH of the ocean might drop below 7 due to higher inputs of carbon dioxide forming CARBONIC acid. I DID see Parrot Boy call H2CO3 by its proper name twice so far. Due to some psychological disturbance, Parrot Boy is incapable of writing anything but RQAA when asked to explain his contradictory claims. So far it is about 10 to 1, the ratio of "carbolic" to "carbonic". If it were an election among Parrot Boy vocabulary, "carbolic acid" won in a landslide of 90%. According to Parrot Boy, 90% of the time when carbon dioxide forms a bond with a water molecule, the product is C6H6OH (carbolic acid), and 10% of the time it forms H2CO3 (carbonic acid) instead. In any case, the DECREASE IN pH from 8.3 to 8.2 is correctly called ACIDIFICATION. The problem is that it implies to the non scientist that the sea might have had the pH drop below 7, or that the concern is that the pH of the sea MIGHT drop below 7. A mass extinction will have already occurred if it drops from pH 8.2 to pH 8.0 And YES, you can acidify an alkaline substance. It will continue to be an alkaline substance throughout acidification, until the pH finally goes below 7. Acidification can continue on below pH 7, but you will no longer be acidifying an alkaline substance. You will be further acidifying an acidic substance. And Parrot Boy can keep saying "You cannot acidify an alkaline" as many times as he wants to prove that he is a "chemist" and I am NOT. Excuse me, sir. May I see your chemist's license? ("RQAA") But, wait! You cannot acidify an alkaline! SO WHAT? It is just a word game about what "acidification" actually means or might imply. It IRRELEVANT to any discussion of what is happening with sea water chemistry. But it makes it quite clear that not everyone has actually studied chemistry. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) |
| 11-09-2024 22:35 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
"You cannot acidify an alkaline." = meaningless sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline SUBSTANCE" = INCORRECT but comprehensible Perhaps what Parrot Boy has been trying to say, in his own grammatically incorrect way, is that "You cannot acidify an alkaline substance" This is a rebuttal to an "argument" that is not being made. Personally, I usually write ocean "acidification", to avoid the confusing connotations. It is scientifically correct to call any DECREASE IN pH "acidification". But the CONNOTATION confuses amateur chemists and laymen. It SEEMS TO IMPLY that the pH has actually gone below 7, when it actually means that the pH has decreased from whatever it was before. No environmental scientists are claiming that the pH of the ocean might drop below 7 due to higher inputs of carbon dioxide forming CARBONIC acid. I DID see Parrot Boy call H2CO3 by its proper name twice so far. Due to some psychological disturbance, Parrot Boy is incapable of writing anything but RQAA when asked to explain his contradictory claims. So far it is about 10 to 1, the ratio of "carbolic" to "carbonic". If it were an election among Parrot Boy vocabulary, "carbolic acid" won in a landslide of 90%. According to Parrot Boy, 90% of the time when carbon dioxide forms a bond with a water molecule, the product is C5H6OH (carbolic acid), and 10% of the time it forms H2CO3 (carbonic acid) instead. This edition of the post corrects the formula for carbolic acid from "C6H6OH" to the correct version "C6H5OH" The formula for carbolic acid is ALSO C6H6O, the standard fare way to write a formula using the symbol for each element included only once. C6H5OH deliberately shows hydrogen (H) in TWO places C6H5OH By having -OH at the end of the formula, it makes it clear that carbolic acid is an ALCOHOL. An aromatic alcohol, also known as a phenol. Carbolic acid creates some confusion when you call it a phenol, because it isn't just one of many aromatic alcohols, ALL known as phenols. It is the ONLY one among them whose unique name IS "phenol" So phenol is a phenol, also known as carbolic acid, benzenol, or phenolic acid. And the last one can create confusion because there are many different phenolic acids. But carbolic acid is the only phenolic acid whose name IS phenolic acid. As a unique identifying name, phenolic acid refers ONLY to carbolic acid, not to any of the many other phenolic acid. Lignin(s) and tannin(s) also "phenols" and "phenolic acids". But none of the many unique lignins and tannins have the name "phenol" or "phenolic acid" And it is HILARIOUS that Parrot Boy is so evasive about admitting in any way that he was ever WRONG to repeatedly claim that carbon dioxide plus water can form CARBOLIC acid. In any case, the DECREASE in the ocean's pH from 8.3 to 8.2 is correctly called ACIDIFICATION. The problem is that it implies to the non scientist that the sea might have had the pH drop below 7, or that the concern is that the pH of the sea MIGHT drop below 7. A mass extinction will have already occurred if it drops from pH 8.2 to pH 8.0 And YES, you can acidify an alkaline substance. It will continue to be an alkaline substance throughout acidification, until the pH finally goes below 7. Acidification can continue on below pH 7, but you will no longer be acidifying an alkaline substance. You will be further acidifying an acidic substance. And Parrot Boy can keep saying "You cannot acidify an alkaline" as many times as he wants to prove that he is a "chemist" and I am NOT. Excuse me, sir. May I see your chemist's license? ("RQAA") But, wait! You cannot acidify an alkaline! SO WHAT? It is just a word game about what "acidification" actually means or might imply. It IRRELEVANT to any discussion of what is happening with sea water chemistry, as the diminished bioavailability of carbonate ions wreaks havoc on ecosystems. But it makes it quite clear that not everyone has actually studied chemistry. COME ON! Show us that chemist "license" you claim to have. Into the Night wrote:[/quote]Im a BM wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) |
| 13-09-2024 00:48 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: It is not a meaningless sentence. sealover wrote: Word games won't work. sealover wrote: It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: No, it isn't. Science isn't word games. sealover wrote: Stop making shit up. sealover wrote: There is no such thing in science. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: You cannot acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: Stop making shit up. sealover wrote: Stop making shit up. sealover wrote: It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: It is not possible to acidify an acid. sealover wrote: You are no chemist. Chemistry is not word games. sealover wrote: Unlike you, I do not give personal information on forums. sealover wrote: You can't. sealover wrote: DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! sealover wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem' in science. 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 |
| 20-10-2024 00:14 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion. Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification. The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH. The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change. But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. The deficiency of carbonate ion has had many adverse impacts, including the fact that commercial shell fish rookeries must purchase carbonate to add to the sea water. Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development. Regarding carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emission in upland ecosystems, I can reference my own publications and the work of others since who have cited them. Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands, I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits. After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation. In a perfect world, someone other than the local trolls would have seen it here. ------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 20-10-2024 04:09 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: Stop cross-thread spamming, Robert. 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 |
| 21-10-2024 18:32 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) CORRECTION - the term "pOH" is the NEGATIVE logarithm of hydroxide ion activity in solution. If the activity coefficient = 1, such as in a pure solution that contains only NaOH and water, pOH is also the negative logarithm of hydroxide ion CONCENTRATION in solution. It really isn't up to me to provide a definition for "climate change". The term has been around for a while, and more than a few people have already been using it. It is such a widely used term, there is presumably some kind of common understanding about what it probably means. Try the dictionary. I would say to read the NEWS about how many "500 year" or "1000 year" extreme weather events occurred in the past year for a DESCRIPTION of what "climate change" is. You don't even have to believe the thermometers! Thirty or forty years ago, "climate change" may have been about the FUTURE. From a theoretical prediction to an actual event occurring before our eyes. Perhaps still lacking an "unambiguous definition for 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics", we already have a pretty good description of how climate change is manifest. Pretty good measurements too. For a DISCUSSION about climate change... That isn't really an option on this website, given the resistance to even allowing use of the term "climate change". I doubt that any new member will join to replace me, since Google stopped directing them here about four months ago. I'll take another look eventually, to see if the moderator ever bothered checking his messages, or looking at his website to do a post mortem. |
| 21-10-2024 19:48 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:sealover wrote: To be fair and define my terms, pOH is the logarithm of the concentration of hydroxide ion (OH-) There is no such thing as 'pOH'. sealover wrote: Yes it is. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: So you can't define it. Gotit. sealover wrote: You can't copout that way! Dictionaries do not define any word. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Climate has no temperature. sealover wrote: Climate is not a crystal ball. sealover wrote: What event? DEFINE IT! sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. There is no 'description' of it at all! sealover wrote: Climate has no measurements. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Stop whining. You obviously cannot provide any meaningful definition. Climate cannot change. It has no temperature or any other factor that can be measured. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. 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 |
| 24-11-2024 19:35 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion. Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification. The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH. The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change. But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. The deficiency of carbonate ion has had many adverse impacts, including the fact that commercial shell fish rookeries must purchase carbonate to add to the sea water. Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development. Regarding carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emission in upland ecosystems, I can reference my own publications and the work of others since who have cited them. Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands, I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits. After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation. ------------------------------------------------- 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. The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the top of page 10 |
| 25-11-2024 04:21 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1771) |
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification. The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH. The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change. But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. The deficiency of carbonate ion has had many adverse impacts, including the fact that commercial shell fish rookeries must purchase carbonate to add to the sea water. Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development. Regarding carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emission in upland ecosystems, I can reference my own publications and the work of others since who have cited them. Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands, I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits. After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation. ------------------------------------------------- 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. The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the top of page 10 |
| 25-11-2024 22:45 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
sealover wrote: Biogeochemistry is not a word. You cannot acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: You cannot acidify an alkaline. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. sealover wrote: Because the ocean is mostly water. Water is a buffer. sealover wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no 'using up' buffering capacity. Water is a buffer. 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 |
| 27-11-2024 01:19 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Water is an EXTREMELY WEAK buffer. Pure water has equilibrium pH of 7. Since pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration, pH 7 means that water has only a tiny concentration of hydrogen ion or hydroxide ion to buffer against pH change. pH 7 means 10 to the minus 7th power. One ten millionth is what that equals. pH 7 water has 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydrogen ion (H+) in solution. The only thing water has to buffer against pH change upon addition of acid is the presence of a TINY concentration of hydroxide ions, OH- At pH 7, the concentration of hydroxide ions (OH-) is exactly equal to the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+). Pure water has 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydroxide ion (OH-) in solution. This is not exactly ZERO buffering capacity. But it is essentially negligible. Sea water, on the other hand, has pH greater than 8. It has more than TEN TIMES as much buffering capacity from hydroxide ion (OH-), compared to pure water. When alkalinity is measured and reported, it is often speciated into the different oxyanions that contribute. Hydroxide alkalinity is one of those species. Alkalinity from carbonate ions and from bicarbonate ions are far more important contributors in virtually all aquatic systems, freshwater or saltwater. Even with more than ten times as much hydroxide ion (OH-), compared to pure water, the water molecules in sea water have virtually no pH buffering capacity. Speciating the oxyanions that contribute alkalinity (pH buffering capacity) in sea water... The combined alkalinity from carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions in sea water is more than 2000 times as much as the pH buffering from "water itself". |
| 27-11-2024 03:56 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. 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 |
| 07-12-2024 21:31 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1722) |
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) This will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. The first post on page 1 of this thread is by "sealover", to open profile page. --------------------------------------------------------------- In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion. Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification. The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH. The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change. But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. The deficiency of carbonate ion has had many adverse impacts, including the fact that commercial shell fish rookeries must purchase carbonate to add to the sea water. Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development. Regarding carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide emission in upland ecosystems, I can reference my own publications and the work of others since who have cited them. Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands, I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits. After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation. ------------------------------------------------- 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. The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the top of page 10 |
| 09-12-2024 18:16 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22880) |
Im a BM wrote: You deny science. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Water is a buffer. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate is not a chemical. Stop spamming. 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 |
Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean | 626 | 22-01-2025 19:46 |
| 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 |