Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

sealover wrote:
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.

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

sealover wrote:
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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

Im a BM wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

Im a BM wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Im a BM wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Im a BM wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Im a BM wrote:
ocean "acidification"

Im a BM wrote:
(i.e. depletion of alkalinity)

Im a BM wrote:
would continue to get worse for decades to come.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify and alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

What pH change????? It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean.

Im a BM wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is nothing to 'mitigate'.

Im a BM wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is washed out of the air when it rains.

Im a BM wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't combust.

Im a BM wrote:
ocean "acidification"

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
(i.e. depletion of alkalinity)

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
would continue to get worse for decades to come.

Argument from randU fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
MORE FUN WITH GOOGLE!

Im a BM wrote:
Google Inquiry: Is carbonate ion a chemical?

Google Answer: "Yes, carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is a chemical, specifically a polyatomic anion, and a fundamental part of many chemical compounds and processes."

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, Google is correct, as it usually is.

Im a BM wrote:
I would add that carbonate ion is an inorganic carbon oxyanion that is a major source of the ocean's capacity to buffer against pH change upon addition of acid. Carbonate ion is a weak base that neutralizes hydrogen ion, H+, or "protons" if you prefer.

Im a BM wrote:
CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- carbonate ion becomes bicarbonate ion, neutralizing H+
Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydrogen is not a proton.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
This is known as buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
Ocean "acidification" has diminished the concentration of carbonate ion, a CHEMICAL, in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
Without sufficient carbonate ion available in solution, marine organisms cannot make enough calcium carbonate shell for healthy development.

Im a BM wrote:
Commercial shellfish operations already have to purchase a source of carbonate ion to add to the sea water they use, in order to have healthy larval development.

Im a BM wrote:
And don't allow some scientifically illiterate troll to ruin the party with some absurd bullshit about "carbonate is not a chemical" because they haven't got a clue how pH or buffering work.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown is addicted to spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
MORE FUN WITH GOOGLE!

Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
Google Inquiry: Is carbonate ion a chemical?

Google Answer: "Yes, carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is a chemical, specifically a polyatomic anion, and a fundamental part of many chemical compounds and processes."

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, Google is correct, as it usually is.

Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
I would add that carbonate ion is an inorganic carbon oxyanion that is a major source of the ocean's capacity to buffer against pH change upon addition of acid. Carbonate ion is a weak base that neutralizes hydrogen ion, H+, or "protons" if you prefer.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydrogen is not a proton. You don't understand pH at all.

Im a BM wrote:
CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- carbonate ion becomes bicarbonate ion, neutralizing H+
Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydrogen is not a proton.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
This is known as buffering.

You don't even know what buffering is.

Im a BM wrote:
Ocean "acidification" has diminished the concentration of carbonate ion, a CHEMICAL, in sea water.

You can't acidify an alkaline. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Without sufficient carbonate ion available in solution, marine organisms cannot make enough calcium carbonate shell for healthy development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no trouble making shells.

Im a BM wrote:
Commercial shellfish operations already have to purchase a source of carbonate ion to add to the sea water they use, in order to have healthy larval development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish larva are not shells. Commercial shellfish operations don't add anything. Their biggest expense is the rack equipment left in the ocean water and the personnel used to seed and harvest the racks.

Im a BM wrote:
And don't allow some scientifically illiterate troll to ruin the party with some absurd bullshit about "carbonate is not a chemical" because they haven't got a clue how pH or buffering work.

It is YOU ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and make up BS about chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown is addicted to spamming.

That you are.

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
"Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water itself is a buffer for acid"... The list of hilarious Chemistry Clown quotes just goes on and on.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown refuses to share his secret definition for pH, but he will say that it is some kind of "ratio". I guess pH is a ratio.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, the hydrogen ion concentration is kind of a "ratio". It is the proton-to-volume ratio. Expressed as molarity, hydrogen ion concentration is reported in units of moles per liter.

Im a BM wrote:
But pH is not the hydrogen ion concentration.

It is the NEGATIVE LOGARITHM of that hydrogen ion concentration (molarity).

pH = -log[H+]

As such, pH will be BELOW ZERO if the hydrogen ion molarity is greater than 1.0

Im a BM wrote:
Such as a 1.5 M solution of nitric acid.

It is not really physically possible for a solution to hold a "ratio" of much more than 5 moles per liter hydrogen ions with ANY acid, but several mineral acids are capable creating below zero pH.

Im a BM wrote:
The acid mine drainage from the Iron Mountain Mine, near Mt. Shasta, has pH less than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
ASK GOOGLE!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water itself is a buffer for acid"... The list of hilarious Chemistry Clown quotes just goes on and on.

You don't make that claim, Clown. You cannot claim something someone else says.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown refuses to share his secret definition for pH, but he will say that it is some kind of "ratio". I guess pH is a ratio.

You don't understand pH or how to calculate it.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, the hydrogen ion concentration is kind of a "ratio". It is the proton-to-volume ratio. Expressed as molarity, hydrogen ion concentration is reported in units of moles per liter.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand pH or how to calculate it.

Im a BM wrote:
But pH is not the hydrogen ion concentration.

It is the NEGATIVE LOGARITHM of that hydrogen ion concentration (molarity).

pH = -log[H+]

As such, pH will be BELOW ZERO if the hydrogen ion molarity is greater than 1.0

pH cannot be below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Such as a 1.5 M solution of nitric acid.

It is not really physically possible for a solution to hold a "ratio" of much more than 5 moles per liter hydrogen ions with ANY acid, but several mineral acids are capable creating below zero pH.

pH cannot be below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
The acid mine drainage from the Iron Mountain Mine, near Mt. Shasta, has pH less than zero.

pH cannot be below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
ASK GOOGLE!

Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
After nine years, the second rate sidekick became a heavy anchor.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown doesn't even understand enough of the most basic concepts to support the word games of the dominant troll's obfuscations.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe it's the math symbols and numbers that you just can't grasp.

Im a BM wrote:
Math symbol "log" is for logarithm, base ten.

A minus sign (-) before that math symbol means is is the NEGATIVE value of that number.

"-log" means negative value of the base-10 logarithm.

Oh, yes, and the "p" in "pH" also designates the negative logarithm.

Maybe it was the "H" you didn't understand.

That stands for the molarity of hydrogen ion in solution, moles per liter.

SOOOOO.... pH - -log[H+] but you don't know what [H+] is either, so...

No wonder you can't solve for the pH of a 1.5 molar solution of strong acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The dominant troll tried to give you a way out, pretending it was really some kind of "change to the acid", rather than pH, that was of interest in pH buffering.

At least the dominant troll backed off from the absurd claim that the change is "more pronounced" adding a drop of acid to sea water, compared to pure water.

Im a BM wrote:
And he tried to bail you out of your buffering stupidity by saying dilution really IS one of the mechanisms of buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
But at some point you'll have to grasp the concept that bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions really DO exist. Even if you don't want to call them "chemicals".

Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, second rate sidekick got ditched because he became too heavy an anchor.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
After nine years, the second rate sidekick became a heavy anchor.

An anchor is not a person, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
The Chemistry Clown doesn't even understand enough of the most basic concepts to support the word games of the dominant troll's obfuscations.

So? I already know your problem.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe it's the math symbols and numbers that you just can't grasp.

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Math symbol "log" is for logarithm, base ten.

A minus sign (-) before that math symbol means is is the NEGATIVE value of that number.

"-log" means negative value of the base-10 logarithm.

Oh, yes, and the "p" in "pH" also designates the negative logarithm.

Maybe it was the "H" you didn't understand.

That stands for the molarity of hydrogen ion in solution, moles per liter.

SOOOOO.... pH - -log[H+] but you don't know what [H+] is either, so...

No wonder you can't solve for the pH of a 1.5 molar solution of strong acid.

You have already demonstrated that you don't anything about pH or how to measure it.

Im a BM wrote:
The dominant troll tried to give you a way out, pretending it was really some kind of "change to the acid", rather than pH, that was of interest in pH buffering.

At least the dominant troll backed off from the absurd claim that the change is "more pronounced" adding a drop of acid to sea water, compared to pure water.

Go learn what 'troll' means. Buzzword fallacy. I already know you don't understand pH.

Im a BM wrote:
And he tried to bail you out of your buffering stupidity by saying dilution really IS one of the mechanisms of buffering.

Dilution is buffering, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
But at some point you'll have to grasp the concept that bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions really DO exist. Even if you don't want to call them "chemicals".

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Meanwhile, second rate sidekick got ditched because he became too heavy an anchor.

An anchor is not a person.

Im a BM wrote:
Because the most important thing for anyone to know about the chemistry involved in ocean acidification is that it can be argued that the term "carbonate" refers to an entire class of chemicals, and not just the individual chemical known as the carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
Here's a tip for anyone reading chemistry literature,

Im a BM wrote:
if you see the term "carbonate" and there isn't the name of a specific cation right in front of it (e.g. calcium carbonate), then "carbonate" is almost always a reference to the carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
The carbonate ion, CO3(2-), is a specific chemical that is of major significance in ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
Denial of the existence of carbonate ion as a chemical impedes rational discussion of seawater chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
But IBdaMann did his best.

He wrote "Carbonate is not a chemical" TWO HUNDRED TIMES.

But the Chemistry Clown has written that sentence at least a THOUSAND TIMES by now.

Im a BM wrote:
Because not everyone has studied enough chemistry to know what the carbonate ion is, and the fact that the term "carbonate" frequently refers to it.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The scientific genius of Into the Night.

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Is there a word you don't like?

Just get rid of the damn thing!

Declare it to be a meaningless "buzzword".

There is NO SUCH THING!

Good. No we don't have to deal with the possibility that it means something.

"You deny science". Indeed, you do!

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Good! By repeating the sentence it gains more authority.

Deny that an entire field of science even exists!

"Water is a buffer." According to the chemistry textbook of fantasyland.

"Carbonate is not a chemical".

Actually, carbonate ion IS a chemical. Dilution does not "buffer" sea water against pH change. Carbonate ion is a chemical that certainly DOES buffer against pH change upon addition of acid.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The scientific genius of Into the Night.

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Is there a word you don't like?

Just get rid of the damn thing!

Declare it to be a meaningless "buzzword".

There is NO SUCH THING!

Good. No we don't have to deal with the possibility that it means something.

"You deny science". Indeed, you do!

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Good! By repeating the sentence it gains more authority.

Deny that an entire field of science even exists!

"Water is a buffer." According to the chemistry textbook of fantasyland.

"Carbonate is not a chemical".

Actually, carbonate ion IS a chemical. Dilution does not "buffer" sea water against pH change. Carbonate ion is a chemical that certainly DOES buffer against pH change upon addition of acid.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Everything that has mass is a chemical

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The scientific genius of Into the Night.

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Is there a word you don't like?

Just get rid of the damn thing!

Declare it to be a meaningless "buzzword".

There is NO SUCH THING!

Good. No we don't have to deal with the possibility that it means something.

"You deny science". Indeed, you do!

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Good! By repeating the sentence it gains more authority.

Deny that an entire field of science even exists!

"Water is a buffer." According to the chemistry textbook of fantasyland.

"Carbonate is not a chemical".

Actually, carbonate ion IS a chemical. Dilution does not "buffer" sea water against pH change. Carbonate ion is a chemical that certainly DOES buffer against pH change upon addition of acid.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Everything that has mass is a chemical

The scientific genius of Swan.

"Everything that has mass is a chemical."

Photons are now chemicals.

Neutrinos are now chemicals.

Dark matter, anyone? It's mass makes it a chemical now.

The universe of what is a chemical just expanded dramatically.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The scientific genius of Into the Night.

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Is there a word you don't like?

Just get rid of the damn thing!

Declare it to be a meaningless "buzzword".

There is NO SUCH THING!

Good. No we don't have to deal with the possibility that it means something.

"You deny science". Indeed, you do!

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Good! By repeating the sentence it gains more authority.

Deny that an entire field of science even exists!

"Water is a buffer." According to the chemistry textbook of fantasyland.

"Carbonate is not a chemical".

Actually, carbonate ion IS a chemical. Dilution does not "buffer" sea water against pH change. Carbonate ion is a chemical that certainly DOES buffer against pH change upon addition of acid.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Everything that has mass is a chemical

The scientific genius of Swan.

"Everything that has mass is a chemical."

Photons are now chemicals.

Neutrinos are now chemicals.

Dark matter, anyone? It's mass makes it a chemical now.

The universe of what is a chemical just expanded dramatically.

Dark matter is a delusion held by fools that claim that 99% of the universe is missing, delusions have no mass as they are electrical signals in the brain. As far as everything and every combination of things on the periodic table, yes they are all chemicals.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The scientific genius of Into the Night.

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Is there a word you don't like?

Just get rid of the damn thing!

Declare it to be a meaningless "buzzword".

There is NO SUCH THING!

Good. No we don't have to deal with the possibility that it means something.

"You deny science". Indeed, you do!

"No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Good! By repeating the sentence it gains more authority.

Deny that an entire field of science even exists!

"Water is a buffer." According to the chemistry textbook of fantasyland.

"Carbonate is not a chemical".

Actually, carbonate ion IS a chemical. Dilution does not "buffer" sea water against pH change. Carbonate ion is a chemical that certainly DOES buffer against pH change upon addition of acid.

Into the Night wrote:

"Carbonate is not a chemical". Good. Repeat that sentence FIVE TIMES.

And finally we get into the REAL chemistry.

Something is NOT something else, damnit!

"Water is not a submarine".

The scientific genius of Into the Night.

Only a truly accomplished chemist with real world training in actual science would know how important it is to point out that "water is not a submarine".

If anyone actually has the patience to read it, this Into the Night post offers many more examples of something that is NOT something else.

That is how a scientific genius earns the right to say:

"You are not an expert. You are a quack. You are a nothing."

Of course, the BEST Into the Night quote spells it out most clearly.

"You are describing yourself."

You cannot acidify "an alkaline" because "carbonate is not a chemical" and "you make shit up."

Who could ever doubt that Into the Night is the legitimate "chemist". whereas I am merely a "quack"?

He certainly repeats the same sentence enough times to make it true.

sealover wrote:
<--- 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.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
In a perfect world, this thread would have been a place of scientific discussion.

You deny science. You are not having a scientific discussion.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry to mitigate ocean acidification.

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
The problem with ocean acidification isn't the slight decline in pH.

You don't know how to measure pH. You don't even know what it is.

sealover wrote:
The ocean has been able to buffer the pH change.

It is not possible to measure the the pH of the oceans. Water is a buffer.

sealover wrote:
But using up that buffering capacity has come at the cost of reducing the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Otherwise, sea water no longer contains enough bioavailable carbonate ion for healthy larval shell development.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish have no problem building their shells.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon exists naturally in the soil. Your 'work' is not science.

sealover wrote:
Regarding the biogeochemistry of groundwater in coastal wetlands,

No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

sealover wrote:
I could only reference my own technical memorandums, base closure investigations, environmental permitting reports, or expert witness testimony in water-quality-related lawsuits.

You are not an 'expert'. You are a quack. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
After leaving academic research, I worked as a private sector consultant, doing extensive water quality investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

You make shit up.

sealover wrote:
Those investigations provide significant insight into how land management practices influence ocean acidification, and could be applied deliberately for significant mitigation.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Climate cannot change. There is no 'scenario'.

sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Carbon is not in the atmosphere (except as soot and particulates), easily washed out with the next rain.

sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves,

There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Why would you want to? Do you like throwing rocks into the ocean???

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water is not a submarine.

sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate cannot be reduced or oxidized. Carbon is not an alkaline. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

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.

Geoengineering is not science. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical.

Everything that has mass is a chemical

The scientific genius of Swan.

"Everything that has mass is a chemical."

Photons are now chemicals.

Neutrinos are now chemicals.

Dark matter, anyone? It's mass makes it a chemical now.

The universe of what is a chemical just expanded dramatically.

Dark matter is a delusion held by fools that claim that 99% of the universe is missing, delusions have no mass as they are electrical signals in the brain. As far as everything and every combination of things on the periodic table, yes they are all chemicals.