Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification
| 06-04-2025 22:18 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Would unpopulated coastal area of SOCAL provide a chance to prove that it works? With predictable success? Incredibly cheap and easy. OMG! OMG! OMG! DON'T GET ME STARTED! On the other Baja may offer fewer obstacle. Plenty of dry, low places close to saltwater. Historically, as long-term (i.e. thousands of years range) weather patterns ebbed and flowed with the rise and fall of the glaciers and seas, wetlands switched back and forth with deserts. Jaguars used to live not far from Death Valley when the marshlands offered the best hunting grounds. Now, a word of advisory. I got too excited when you asked the question but it is way jumping the gun on anything bigger than a small lagoon. A small lagoon you would have seen naturally occurring in that same spot if you had been here, back in the day. Back at that point in ice cycle It rained a WHOLE lot more in SOCAL. Only now it was a desert. You are talking about getting it wet again when it had a long time to get dry. If the rewetting had been over millenia of gradual increase, it surely would be nothing like suddenly getting it wet now. Let the scientists check it out thoroughly before you try it. Do me a favor and ask my advise before going in yet. The controlled study of the small new lagoon, fed by sea water pumped upland, would measure submarine groundwater discharge with extensive monitoring and clustered-wells where muliple ground wateer bearing units at multiple depths can be sampled in a single location. |
| 06-04-2025 22:19 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Inorganic Carbon versus Organic Carbon Some of the important differences. ORGANIC CARBON is in chemically reduced state. INORGANIC CARBON is in a chemically oxidized state. Organic carbon can yield energy by being oxidized. Inorganic carbon cannot yield energy by being oxidized. Inorganic carbon is a very weak oxidant. Ancient methanogens used to combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to generate methane, water, and a very small amount of energy. Organic carbon is a weaker reductant than many others in nature, such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and other reduced forms of sulfur. If stronger reductants than organic carbon are available in the presence of oxygen, microorganisms that use the stronger reductants have a competitive advantage. Such as the sulfur oxidizers who competed to get the oxygen from ancient cyanobacteria in a time when oxygen was a coveted and limited resource. Sulfur oxidation yielded so much more energy than carbon oxidation, the carbon oxidizers didn't have a chance until the sulfur ran out. Inorganic carbon oxyanions bicarbonate and carbonate provide the vast majority of alkalinity in the sea. Organic carbon anions of deprotonated organic acids (citrate, acetate, etc.) provide more of the sea's alkalinity than previously recognized. ORGANIC ALKALINITY can be one fourth of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from wetlands. |
| 06-04-2025 22:22 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. |
| 06-04-2025 22:23 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Organic Alkalinity - Carboxylic and Phenolic groups on organic acids. Historically, organic alkalinity was not recognized as an important component in the alkalinity of the ocean. It was known that oxyanions of deprotonated organic acid existed. It was known that they contributed acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). Few people had any idea how much of them there was in sea water, and how important this unique "pool" of alkalinity is. Most alkalinity in sea water arises from phenol carboxylic acids, such as "humic" acids. These are often large molecules that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites provided by carboxylic and phenolic functional groups. Carboxylic acids are the most familiar organic acids. Vinegar, citric acid, vitamin C, lactic acid. They all have a carboxylic group. A carbon double bonded to one oxygen, and single bonded to a second oxygen in a hydroxyl (-OH) group. Carboxylic acids typically have pKa in the ballpark of 4.5. This means that at near pH 4.5, they are half deprotonated and half in acid form. The alkalinity of organic acid buffers can be calculated knowing the pH of the solution and the pKa of the organic acid. One thing that organic carbon alkalinity can do that inorganic carbon alkalinity cannot is to form organometallic complexes with transition metals such as iron. Often tightly bound as inner sphere chelation complexes, organic anions are a major controller on the behavior of metals in solution. Organic alkalinity is finally getting the attention it deserves in the new research. |
| 06-04-2025 22:24 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
CORRECTION (organic alkalinity) and role of phenolic groups. I mistakenly said that organic alkalinity supplied most of the seas alkalinity. WRONG. Not even close. Bicarbonate and carbonate supply the overwhelming majority of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). ORGANIC ALKALINITY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT IN SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FROM WETLANDS - ABOUT ONE FOURTH OF TOTAL ALKALINITY. Phenolic groups, a hydroxyl group attached to an aromatic ring, also provide alkalinity. Phenolic acids are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. They do not deprotonate until much higher pH, compared to carboxylic acids. Much higher pKa. The most important functional group pairings within the organic alkalinity oxyanions are Ortho di carboxylic - Two adjacent carboxylic groups capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho hydric phenol carboxylic - adjacent phenolic and carboxylic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho di hydric phenolic - adjacent phenolic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. |
| 06-04-2025 22:25 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
CORRECTION: BENZOIC ACIDS (aromatic carboxylic) The most common organic acids in nature are carboxylic acids. Deprotonation of the carboxylic group yields an organic carbon oxyanion. Organic carbon oxyanions contribute alkalinity. Some carboxylic groups on organic acids occur on aromatic rings. This combination of aromatic carboxylic is known as BENZOIC ACID. As in it is on a BENZENE aromatic ring. The pKas of benzoic acids range substantially more widely than the aliphatic carboxylic acids with pKas typically near 4. Phenolic acids, hydroxylic groups on aromatic benzene ring, are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. Furthermore, phenolics pKa is closer to 10. They don't deprotonate until high pH. The combination of aliphatic carboxylic, benzoic, phenol carboxylic, and polyphenolic functional results in four distinct pH ranges where naturally occurring organic alkalinity has peak buffering capacity. The two biggest peaks are near pH 4.5 and pH 10. Maximum resistance to pH shift in response to addition or neutralization of protons occurs near pH 4.5 and pH 10. Organic anions with adjacent acidic functional groups can form chelation complexes with metals, forming ring structure 2-bond complex. Dicarboxylic, ortho phenol benzoic, and ortho dihydric phenolic acids all have two adjacent acidic groups to act as polydentate ligands. |
| 06-04-2025 22:26 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. |
| 06-04-2025 22:27 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. |
| 06-04-2025 22:28 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. |
| 06-04-2025 22:29 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis. The basic photosystem required for intracellular photooxidation of manganese didn't require much voltage to make it work. Manganese(II) needed only to be oxidized to manganese(IV). It was EASY with ultraviolet. It took a light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that low voltage in bright blue visible light. It took a far more elaborate light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that voltage in dim red visible light. Still just enough voltage to yank off just those two electrons, to oxidize manganese(II) to manganese(IV). But now that elaborate light harvesting apparatus for dim red light could be brought to the bright surface to generate much higher voltage. Manganese has multiple oxidation states. Manganese(II) and manganese(IV) are just two of them. Manganese(VII), a highly oxidized by product of manganese(II) oxidation by manganese oxidizing bacteria, is a VERY POWERFUL OXIDANT. Manganese(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen, O2. Manganese(VII) can oxidize chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium, abiotically. A photosystem that generates enough voltage to turn manganese(II) to manganese(VII) could yank an electron off nitrite to make nitrate. Nitrite could be used as a last resort reductant reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis, generating nitrate, a powerful oxidant. And a photosystem that could generate that much voltage for manganese oxidation was almost ready to be able to oxidize water and generate oxygen gas. Then you would never need to depend on the environment to supply chemical reductants for photosynthesis. A lot of sun energy was wasted just to crank up the voltage enough to oxidize water. But now a photosynthetic bacteria could grow anywhere that had sun and water. |
| 06-04-2025 22:30 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Arsenic Based Anoxygenic Photosynthesis - Mono Lake, California The use of arsenic by bacteria at Mono Lake was cause for a genuine scandal in science. Arsenic is VERY similar to phosphorus in its chemical properties and behavior. Many of the things organisms need phosphorus for, such as the phospholipids in membranes, can be made with arsenic instead. SO MANY of the things that phosphorus does can be replaced by arsenic that a very controversial paper was published in the journal NATURE. She claimed to have shown a bacteria from Mono Lake was able to survive, grow, and reproduce with NO PHOSPHORUS WHATSOEVER. It was a lie. She had to add just a smidgeon of phosphorus to keep them alive. But hardly any! This was an organism adapted to survive in an arsenic rich ecosystem. Who else lived there? How about an oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that uses arsenite as reductant and puts out arsenate as the oxidant product of photosynthesis? It's a much better deal than using nitrite. More bang for the sunlight buck. With so much arsenite around, the oxygenic photosynthetic competitors don't have a chance. No cyanobacteria here. They were outgrown and overrun. And it provided a source of arsenate as an oxidant for microbial ecosystems. Arsenate is a better oxidant than many, except for nitrate and oxygen, and a few others. |
| 06-04-2025 22:31 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Made in the shade! One way that bacteria evolved to carry out anoxygenic photosynthesis is to use ferrous iron as reductant. Using ferrous iron as reductant, ferric iron is the oxidant product of this pathway for anoxygenic photosynthesis. Using ferrous iron in anoxygenic photosynthesis gives higher energy yield than using something like nitrite. And if ferrous iron is available, these iron oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria can out compete cyanobacteria nicely. Especially in the shade. There are places where ferrous iron seeps up into marine ecosystems from below. At the surface where the cyanobacteria and others compete for sunlight, there is just too much oxygen around for ferrous iron to be available at sufficient concentration to support anoxygenic photosynthesis. But IMMEDIATELY BELOW the top layer is a dense layer of photosynthetic bacteria thriving in the shade. There is enough more bang for the buck using ferrous iron rather than water as reductant for photosynthesis, it more than makes up for the difference having dimmer light. These guys have it made in the shade, even in today's oxygen rich world. |
| 06-04-2025 22:32 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Rock Hound Bacteria? They ARE Lithophiles! Give me an unambiguous definition for the term lithophile? It kind of depends on the context. It is either a person who loves rocks, a "rock hound", or... It is a BACTERIA that loves rocks so much that they can't live without them. Lithophilic bacteria are chemoautotrophs. They are capable of synthesizing their own organic carbon starting with carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate. They get their energy from the aerobic oxidation of rock minerals. Sulfur, iron, manganese, ammonium, and the list goes on and on. All a rock hound bacteria really needs is oxygen, inorganic carbon (CO2, HCO3, or CO3), and a rock mineral with chemically reduced form of the element they are specialized at oxidizing. Many rock hound bacteria CAN use pre-formed organic carbon that they acquire from the environment. Why not? It's already there and it's FREE. But they don't have to. They can get by just on inorganic carbon if required. Rock hound bacteria played a role in the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills. Ammonium was trapped in the mineral structure of the rocks in this narrow zone of the richest gold deposits in California Gold Rush history. It was, literally, the Mother Lode. The rocks of the Mother Lode used to be sea floor off the California coast, long long ago. A lot of organic nitrogen piled up in the sea floor debris. When plate tectonics shoved the sea floor of the coastal shelf up under the mountains of the coast, that organic nitrogen got buried among the sediment layers. The material in these sediments was never subjected to severe metamorphosis. They are metasedimentary rocks, but they didn't meta very much. The nitrogen remained intact as ammonium, rather than getting baked out or pressed out as nitrogen gas. By the time it became the Mother Lode, these buried sediments were no longer under the coast range. A whole new mountain range was now building on the coast, and there was a huge valley in between them. The Mother Lode was now in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. When the ancient buried ammonium-rich rock was exposed to oxygen, rock hound bacteria fed upon it. Two kinds. The first ones used oxygen to oxidize ammonium (NH4+) to nitrite (NO2-). The second ones used oxygen to oxidize nitrite (NO2-) to nitrate (NO3-). And nitrate then percolated down into groundwater. Flowed down along sub surface flow paths. And seeped back up into stream water and reservoir water. And fertilized too much algae. And killed too many fish. |
| 06-04-2025 22:33 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Phenotypic Plasticity as a Mechanism of Adaptive Radiation. Adaptive radiation is when a species is able to move into new niches owing to a new adaptation. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal species to be competitive in niches that were previously too cold for it to survive. Adaptive radiation also allows a population to survive when the niche to which it is adapted changes. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal to stay competitive even as the niche to which it had adapted becomes colder. One way to facilitate adaptive radiation is to have a lot of genetic variability among progeny. Most of the mutant freaks will die because the genetic variation made them LESS competitive. One of the mutant freaks will survive where no others could because the genetic variation made it MORE competitive. A tree might have fruit bats dropping its seeds far and wide. Some of those seeds will fall into soil conditions to which the seed tree is not adapted. Genetic variability among the seeds could mean that one of them IS adapted to the different soil condition. This would be adaptive radiation facilitated by genetic variation. But what if you don't want to have to make so many seeds in order for them to be able to have variability of traits for adaptive radiation? PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY! A single genotype can code for multiple phenotypes, depending on environmental conditions. A single genotype in a fish species could allow that fish to survive in a broad range of salinity, if it has phenotypic plasticity. In saltier water, that fish will grow differently, have different physiology, and live a different lifestyle than the same fish genotype growing in less salty water. Phenotypic plasticity to change physiology, morphology, and behavior in response to changing environmental conditions is a superb mechanism of adaptive radiation. Some of my vegetable friends are really good at it. Beech. Fagus sylvatica. Drop one of their seeds into an acidic, siliceous soil, and they will grow one way. They will grow slowly, become very woody, hang on to their leaves as long as possible, concentrate their roots near the surface, allocate much if not most of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce exceptionally high concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will accumulate at the surface as distinct layers in different stages of decomposition. Detritivores such as earthworms will find the litter unpalatable and will not eat it or mix it into the mineral soil during the process of eating it. Drop another genetically identical beech seed into a calcareous, neutral pH soil, and it will grow VERY differently. They will grow rapidly, not become so woody, shed and replace their leaves frequently, distribute roots deep into the soil with few at the surface, allocate very little of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce only low concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will decompose rapidly and get mixed into the mineral soil as detritivores devour it. Other plants, you won't even recognize them when they grow in a different niche. Phenotypic plasticity facilitates adaptive radiation of a population out into new niches. Phenotypic plasticity also facilitates a population remaining in place when the niche changes. Plants are pretty good at it. |
| 06-04-2025 22:34 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Familiar Phenotypic Plasticity. Ants, termites, wasps, and bees. Phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a single phenotype to express multiple phenotypes, is more familiar to you than you may know. Some termite larvae are given a lot of hormones at the right stage of development to grow into guards. They have the same genes as the other termites, but they sure don't look the same. Their jaws are HUGE. They cannot eat with those jaws. Someone has to spit pre-chewed food into their mouth for them to keep them alive. With ants, bees, and wasps, how much royal jelly a larvae gets determines what it grows into. Queens, drones, guards, and soldiers.. Phenotypic plasticity is something you knew about your whole life! |
| 06-04-2025 22:35 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere. Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. In time, a natural population of methane oxidizing bacteria will establish at the place where the fracking leak methane contacts the atmosphere. They will oxidize the methane into carbon dioxide, reducing its global warming potential by 95%. But they can only oxidize the methane they can catch. They probably can't catch most of it. BUT WE CAN HELP THE METHANE OXIZIDIZING BACTERIA HELP US! We can help make sure they get there in the first place. They only exist in nature where natural sources of methane come up to the atmosphere. There probably aren't a lot of them close by when fracking opens up a crack. So we can culture the methane oxidizing bacteria and use them to establish populations where fracking causes methane to leak. We can culture them selectively to perform across a broad range of conditions of temperature, moisture, salinity, pH, etc. We can match our selectively cultured methane oxidizers to the conditions where we will plant their seeds. But they won't be able to oxidize all the methane. They probably won't even be able to oxidize MOST of the methane. We can help them out with some engineering. We can locate the point sources of methane emission and construct a high surface area structure to enable maximum contact between methane oxidizing bacteria and methane emitted from the fracking induced leak. A large, moist surface area, possibly supplemented with Pasteur Salt type inorganic nutrients to enable bacteria to thrive on the methane. The microorganisms will do it voluntarily and they will do their best to survive with just a tiny bit of help from us. Those methane oxidizing bacteria can help us reduce the global warming potential of fracking methane emissions by 95%. I'm not saying don't frack. I'm just saying be sure to light a match if you fart so it doesn't stink. |
| 06-04-2025 22:37 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity. It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC). Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity. Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material. The cation exchange sites may be permanent negative charges arising within the structure, due to isomorphous substitution of lower charge cations within the crystal structure of clay minerals. The cation exchange capacity may be the variable charge that arises when carboxylic groups or phenolic groups on solid phase organic acids deprotonate. Cation exchange capacity is a direct measure of how much cation charge the solid phase can adsorb. This is also how much proton charge they can neutralize, as protons exchange for adsorbed cations. This is just a preview, really. We'll need to get into CEC a lot more as we discuss the importance of soil organic matter, and the consequences of its loss. In a typical soil, about half the CEC arises from clay minerals, and the other half from organic matter. When poor management causes loss of soil organic matter, it does more than release a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It causes the soil to be able to hold fewer nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Loss of soil organic matter causes associated nutrient cations to be lost |
| 06-04-2025 22:38 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Cation Exchange Capacity. Exchangeable Acidity. % Base Saturation. Comparing solid phase CEC with aqueous solution ANC (alkalinity). Both are measure of ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY (moles per liter or kg) Both quantify a "pool" that contains base cations and metals adsorbed to solid phase exchange sites, or contains base cations and metals in solution complexed by oxyanions. Both solid phase CEC and solution ANC can exchange the base cations or metals for protons, or visa versa. Both are very pH dependent. At higher pH, more solid phase CEC sites and more solution phase ANC sites are occupied by base cations and metals, and fewer by protons. "Exchangeable acidity" is how much of the solid phase CEC is occupied by protons. You need to know "exchangeable" acidity to calculate how much lime must be added to bring soil to some desired higher pH. "% Base Saturation" Cation exchange capacity doesn't provide plants with any nutrition unless the cation exchange sites are occupied by nutrient base cations or metals. As highly leached soils become older and more acidified, more and more of the cation exchange sites are occupied by aluminum cations, rather than calcium, magnesium, potassium, ammonium, iron, or something good for the plant. Aluminum is not a plant nutrient, but it can be toxic to plants. "% Base Saturation" is the percentage of cation exchange sites occupied by calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. A low % Base Saturation means that most CEC sites are occupied by aluminum or by acid protons. A high CEC soil is useless for plants unless there is something good on the cation exchange sites. A soil with low % Base Saturation can't supply much base cation or metal nutrition to plants. It can't even neutralize much more acidity. |
| 06-04-2025 22:39 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
"Magic" power of CO2 - formation of very weak acid The three most abundant gases in the atmosphere are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. CO2 has a "magic" power that the more abundant gases do not have. Not talking about infrared absorption and the ability to act as greenhouse gas. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon (a little bit) can dissolve in water, as can CO2. But CO2 is the only one that forms acid when in water. H2CO3, or carbonic acid. Compared to atmospheric physics, water chemistry is very straightforward. There is another gas, present in the atmosphere at concentrations far tinier than CO2, that also forms acid when dissolved in water. Sulfur trioxide, SO3, combines with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4. There is a big difference between carbonic acid and sulfuric acid regarding how they interact with acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) in sea water. Sulfuric acid is very strong, and it readily deprotonates into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions. Carbonic acid is very weak, and it does not easily deprotonate into separate hydrogen ions and bicarbonate or carbonate ions. There is plenty of dissolved sulfate in sea water, well over 3000 ppm. But sulfate provides no alkalinity to buffer against ocean "acidification". Sulfate will not accept a proton to become sulfuric acid unless the pH is EXTREMELY low, well below 1. Bicarbonate and carbonate provide virtually all the alkalinity in sea water. These weak acid anions will readily accept a proton or two to become carbonic acid, even at pH well above 7. This buffers sea water against pH change, keeping it a little above pH 8 despite large additions of acid. But it is not the tiny decrease in pH that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems. It is the large depletion of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), which makes carbonate ions much less available to organisms for shell formation. |
| 06-04-2025 22:40 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
"Organic Carbon... Where does all the Organic Carbon originate" Photosynthesis is the most important source of organic carbon, but not the only source. Not talking about some whacko theory that coal or oil formed from anything other than ancient organic carbon laid down by photosynthetic organisms. Chemoautotrophic bacteria were turning carbon dioxide into organic carbon long before photosynthesis evolved. Methanogenic bacteria, for example. 4000 million years ago there was a LOT of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the earth's young crust was constantly emitting hydrogen gas. Methanogens combined the hydrogen with the carbon dioxide to form methane, and get a little metabolic energy in the process. Methane is organic carbon. Perhaps a more modern example would make the point more clear. Many chemoautotrophic bacteria are known as lithophiles. They use oxygen to oxidize minerals to get energy. The minerals include all variety of sulfides, ammonia, ferrous iron or Fe(II), manganese(II), arsenic(III), and a long list of others. These oxidation reactions generate sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ferric iron or Fe(III), arsenic(V), and the oxidized form of all the others (selenate, phosphate, borate, molybdate, etc.) But no organic carbon. These bacteria have to take CO2 and reduce it to organic carbon, using some of the energy they get from mineral oxidation. |
| 06-04-2025 22:41 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
CO2 is certainly the "food" from which organisms synthesize organic carbon. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have certainly increased the productivity of many terrestrial plants - those that grow on land. Most land plants employ C-3 metabolism in photosynthesis. This involves capturing a CO2 molecule by the Rubisco enzyme, to then be reduced into organic carbon. When CO2 is too low, Rubisco accidentally captures oxygen molecules instead of CO2. Known as "photorespiration", this oxygen is passed by Rubisco to attach and burn up an organic carbon atom to make CO2. This costs the plant sugar that it already made. Forests, in particular, have increased productivity in response to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now "aggrading" more by accumulating organic carbon. Other land plants, including corn and sugar cane, employ C-4 metabolism which does not involve Rubisco to capture CO2. They are not any more productive with higher CO2 now in the atmosphere. Indeed, they are losing their competitive advantage in natural ecosystems because C-3 plants have become more productive while C-4 plants have not. Photosynthesis in the sea does not benefit in any way from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The sea already contained fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. Marine photosynthesis was never limited by the availability of CO2. Carbon dioxide forms weak acid when it dissolves in sea water. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have altered the chemistry of sea water. Although sea water pH remains above 8, because it is so well buffered with bicarbonate alkalinity, the alkalinity has been significantly depleted. This diminishes the bioavailability of carbonate ions for shell formation. Here, the word "shell" is to describe hard structures made of calcium carbonate. Clams, for example, and all the other shelled mollusks. Coral reefs, for example, a bit more loosely defining what we call a "shell". Even barnacles, which are crustaceans. Like all arthropods, crustaceans have an exoskeleton "shell" made of chitin. Chitin is very different from calcium carbonate, and does not require carbonate ion to form. But the barnacle also has a "shell" structure that it builds around itself which is made of calcium carbonate. Yes, CO2 is food for farm plants, and we certainly would NOT want its concentration in the atmosphere to somehow drop so low that it diminishes productivity. CO2 is also acid for the sea, and we certainly WOULD want to somehow mitigate its demonstrable adverse impact on marine ecosystems. And while many crop yields may have been increased by the higher CO2, this is more than offset by the crop LOSSES due to the increased frequency and severity of drought and flooding. Beyond the adverse impacts of higher temperatures with global warming, the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather event also causes crop losses as untimely early blossoms later freeze in the early spring, or fruit freezes on the trees during record cold nights. Texas didn't anticipate climate change when they built their power grid without the ability to withstand freezing temperatures. Florida oranges didn't used to freeze on the trees as often as they do now, despite the warmer summers and the continued increase in annual average temperature of the air at the surface. There is no physical possibility that any measure humans take could reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere enough to cause famine because it is too low to support crops. I mean, if that was a genuine concern anyone had. |
| 06-04-2025 22:42 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
3 days ago a new paper came out regarding remediation of anthropogenic chlorophenols. Shivani Yadav et al. 2023. A comprehensive review of chlorophenols: Fate, toxicology, and its treatment. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 342 118254 It cites my polyphenol research. It is an example of applied biogeochemistry to address a practical problem. Chlorophenols are part of a broader class of halogenated organic carbon compounds. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. In organic form, the halogens are covalently bonded to carbon atoms. Under strong chemical reducing conditions, reductive dehalogenation can be carried out by bacteria or by abiotic reactions. The halogen, chlorine in the case of chlorophenols, is chemically reduced to chloride ion. The remaining part of the organic compound is much easier to degrade, once the halogen is removed. Polyphenols been used in many ways to facilitate remediation of harmful contaminants in the environment. Earlier this year, a paper came out about reducing hexavalent chromium using polyphenols as a way of detoxifying Cr(VI) contaminated soil. As reducing agents for reductive dehalogenation, polyphenols may turn out to be more effective than I predicted. Sooner or later, someone who is genuinely interested in environmental chemistry will join or rejoin the discussion. Hopefully, it will be clear that there is an active member who doesn't simply make up scientific claims, but is actually a highly trained and accomplished scientist in the real world. |
| 06-04-2025 22:43 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
So let me be one of the very few who actually reads one of your posts and responds to it. "Climate cannot change" Tell that to the climate. And try to convince people not to believe their own lying eyes as they see extreme weather events become more and more frequent. "Carbon is not carbon dioxide" Perhaps you should read more. "Carbon footprint" is not a reference to carbon as an element. "Carbon neutral" is not either. Indeed, it is quite common to reference carbon dioxide as simply "carbon". "Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn" Is it possible that you really don't know what the term "fossil fuel" means? "An acid is not an alkaline. Ocean water is not acidic." Actually, NOTHING is "an alkaline". Alkaline is not a noun. I don't see what this is a response to. Is somebody claiming that ocean water is acidic? Too many stupid claims to respond to so I'll just select a few more. "Alkalinity is not a substance." Repeated multiple times. No, it is not. However, aqueous solutions are substances that almost always have some alkalinity. "Oxidation is not reduction." Said repeatedly. A truly brilliant insight... to counter which claim? Was something said that could be interpreted to imply that oxidation IS reduction? "Carbon is not organic." Repeatedly said. Most of the world's carbon is, in fact, inorganic. A chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically oxidized form (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion) is defined as "inorganic carbon". On the other hand, while it is less than half the total carbon in the world, there is a whole lot of organic carbon out there. An organic chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically reduced form is defined as "organic carbon" Are you sure that your company doesn't sell "organic carbon" analyzers? "No such 'parameter' or quantity called 'alkalinity'." Perhaps you should learn to read. In the US, it is reported as milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents. I have authored many water quality reports where we paid a lab to measure this non existent parameter. We had to get it speciated as well. So we had four numbers to work with. Total alkalinity = acid neutralizing capacity from all contributing oxyanions. Hydroxide alkalinity = that tiny fraction of total alkalinity arising from hydroxide ions Bicarbonate alkalinity = usually the lion's share of total alkalinity, it is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from bicarbonate ions. HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 Carbonate alkalinity = that part of total acid neutralizing capacity arising from carbonate ions. CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- (one proton neutralized) and then HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 (a second proton neutralized) It has been long known that other oxyanions such as phosphate, silicate, borate, and many other oxyanions contribute to acid neutralizing capacity. But they are so much less than 1% of the total that they are ignored. On the other hand, water chemists now deeply regret that they didn't take organic alkalinity seriously enough. Organic oxyanions, such as citrate, turn out to be a significant contributor to total alkalinity in many waters. "Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight." Actually, the oxyanions that contribute alkalinity ALL have some weight. "An acid is not an alkaline." The same meaningless sentence as before. NOTHING is "an alkaline" "Alkalinity is not a substance or a valid word" I guess you will have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks AND the dictionary, because they are under the impression that is IS a valid word. I'm sure that there will be a very lengthy response to this, but this is the last time I will bother responding to or even reading another parrot poop post. |
| 06-04-2025 22:46 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
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 |
| 06-04-2025 22:47 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
A paper came out eight months ago that is highly relevant to the paleobiogeochemistry and origin of photosynthesis topics discussed on this thread. P. Crockford, et al. 2023. The geologic history of net primary productivity. Current Biology. Volume 33, Issue 21, Pages 4741-4750. What drew my attention was a popular press article about the paper. It was a story by Eric Ralls, titled "The total amount of life that has ever existed on Earth is mind-blowing." (in earth.com) I want to quote directly from this article because he correctly uses terms that are NOT "buzzwords". "..the concept of primary production, a process where organisms convert inorganic carbon, like atmospheric carbon dioxide and oceanic bicarbonate, into organic molecules.." It gets into how ANOXYGENIC photosynthesis by bacteria was how photosynthesis got started. Oxygenic photosynthesis, which produces oxygen, came much later. "The rise of oxygen was a turning point, leading to the evolution of aerobic organisms that could use oxygen for energy." It is good to see this getting attention outside of the Ivory Tower. And it is reassuring that authors are allowed to refer to "inorganic carbon", as scientists do, without being censored by trolls. |
| 06-04-2025 22:50 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
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. 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. |
| 06-04-2025 22:52 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
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. |
| 06-04-2025 22:53 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
"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. |
| 06-04-2025 22:56 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
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". |
| 06-04-2025 22:59 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
MORE FUN WITH GOOGLE! 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." Of course, Google is correct, as it usually is. 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. CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- carbonate ion becomes bicarbonate ion, neutralizing H+ This is known as buffering. Ocean "acidification" has diminished the concentration of carbonate ion, a CHEMICAL, in sea water. Without sufficient carbonate ion available in solution, marine organisms cannot make enough calcium carbonate shell for healthy development. 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. 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. The Chemistry Clown is addicted to spamming. |
| 06-04-2025 23:00 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
"Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water itself is a buffer for acid"... The list of hilarious Chemistry Clown quotes just goes on and on. 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. 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. 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 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. The acid mine drainage from the Iron Mountain Mine, near Mt. Shasta, has pH less than zero. ASK GOOGLE! |
| 06-04-2025 23:03 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Iron Reducers and the Hazards of Environmental Chemotherapy Iron reducing bacteria can inadvertently release arsenic into groundwater via reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic. Under low oxygen conditions, and in the presence of digestible organic carbon, iron reducing bacteria use ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. There is usually not enough digestible organic carbon available in groundwater for iron reducing bacteria to use on a scale that releases much arsenic. Once upon a time, environmental regulators were so concerned about the water quality that they mandated environmental chemotherapy in a large area used to store dredged sediments. The mandate was for "pH adjustment". The megatons of dredged sediments needed to have their pH adjusted to be between 6.5 and 7.5. Neutral is nice. They didn't like the fact that dredged sediments do what all wetland sediments do when they are drained and exposed to oxygen. Like the millions and millions of hectares of "acid sulfate" soils that have formed where humans drained wetlands for agriculture, the dredge spoils become acidic. Like those acid sulfate soils in the world's most productive agricultural land, the dredge spoils develop pH below 5. At pH 5, it is technically "acidic" and the regulators became convinced that this means the dredge spoils must be poisoning the groundwater with toxic metals. In compliance with the mandated environmental chemotherapy, the dredge spoil pH was "adjusted" with beet lime, calcium carbonate, CaCO3. It failed to get the dredged sediment pH to rise anywhere near the required pH between 6.5 and 7.5 It DID succeed at changing the concentration of toxic metals in the groundwater. Arsenic concentrations increased by 500%. Without a whole lot of digestible dissolved organic carbon coming in, the iron reducers weren't releasing a lot of ferric-iron bound arsenic into groundwater. The beet lime certainly raised the pH of the organic matter it came into immediate contact with. Didn't make a dent in overall sediment pile pH, but the microsite effect of higher pH at the point of contact made the organic matter MUCH more soluble. So, the next time it rained enough for a water column to push down into groundwater, it was LOADED with easily digestible dissolved organic carbon. The iron reducing bacteria had a feeding frenzy and dissolved a bunch of arsenic in the process. Environmental therapy to accomplish pH adjustment has been attempted on a much larger scale and proved to have very similar pitfalls. In response to "acid rain" damage to forests in Europe, large areas had lime, calcium carbonate, dropped down onto them from the sky. One of the adverse impacts of this pH adjustment environmental chemotherapy was that entire watersheds doubled the amount of dissolved organic carbon flowing out in surface waters. The solubility of organic matter is pH dependent. The solubility of many toxic metals is controlled more by dissolved organic carbon than it is by pH. In theory, raising the pH from 5 to 7 reduces the solubility of a transition metal, such as aluminum. In actual practice, taking an aluminum-rich forest soil with pH 5, and adjusting its pH to 7 will cause a huge INCREASE in the amount of aluminum dissolved in the soil water. By increasing the solubility of organic matter, raising the pH increased the quantity of metal-complexing organic acids in solution. Aluminum that was not otherwise soluble, even at pH 5, gets caught up into organometallic complexes and goes into solution. The result is a lot more aluminum dissolved at the higher pH. Which takes us back to the environmental chemotherapy performed on dredge spoils. Higher concentrations of dissolved organic carbon going down into groundwater brought about high concentrations of arsenic. That was because the organic carbon was used as food for iron reducers. However, that same environmental chemotherapy experiment also increased the concentrations of several potentially toxic transition metals in groundwater. Nickel, for example. The dissolved organic carbon chelated the nickel. No role of any microorganisms. Simply the fact that higher pH meant more dissolved organic carbon to act as metal complexing agents to chelate nickel. |
| 06-04-2025 23:06 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
Manganese Oxidizers and the Hazards of Environmental Chemotherapy Manganese oxidizing bacteria can inadvertently bring about abiotic oxidation of trivalent chromium to hexavalent chromium. This problem can be aggravated with environmental chemotherapy. The very same prescription that temporarily decreases concentrations of hexavalent chromium - the application of a strong chemical reductant - ensures that there will be more manganese(II) available to help create more hexavalent chromium later. This thread present information about the use of constructed wetlands to generate alkalinity in effluent waters. This is a proven technology with a more than 50 year track record of success. Constructed wetlands are an effective way to remediate acid mine discharge. This qualifies as "geoengineering". The objective of making more alkalinity enter the sea, primarily as submarine groundwater discharge also qualifies as "environmental chemotherapy" As a gross generalization, environmental chemotherapy experiments are a lot more likely to do harm than good. Trial and error of these efforts tends to produce a lot of errors. Environmental chemotherapy to remediate hexavalent chromium has a mixed record, at best. Imagine an old laboratory where they used to dump a lot of chemicals down the drain. Those lab drains all went to a septic tank. Septic tank effluent went out into a leaching field. Some of that water, and all the chemicals it contained found its way into subsurface flow paths. Year after year they put organic carbon compounds into the septic tank, as laboratory or restroom waste. Year after year, some of this organic carbon was arrested along the way and attached to soil particles along a subsurface flow path. It accumulated a nice coating of humic materials which had a lot of cation exchange capacity. One of the chemicals they used to dump down the drain was hexavalent chromium. Labs used to use the stuff for a wide variety of application. That hexavalent chromium went into the septic tank. Then it went into the leaching field. And then some of it went down along subsurface flow paths, where it attached itself to the humic coatings on the surfaces all around. It didn't remain for long in the chemical form of hexavalent chromium. The adsorbed hex chrome soon enough got reduced to trivalent chromium. This benign chemical then remained as part of the solid phase organometallic complex. Trivalent chromium bound up in humic material. No problem. They stopped using the septic tank and got the lab connected to a sewer line. No longer were the subsurface flow paths constantly being supplied with fresh organic carbon. Organic matter decayed faster than it was replaced. The trivalent chromium adsorbed along the flow paths was losing its solid matrix to remain bound in. But the trivalent chromium wasn't alone. Also bound up in the humic coatings was a generous supply of adsorbed manganese(II), Mn2+, ions attached to cation exchange sites. As the matrix around it decomposed, this manganese(II) was present along with the trivalent chromium. When the humic matrix fully decomposed, both the trivalent chromium and manganese(II) were released into solution, in the presence of oxygen. Manganese oxidizing bacteria couldn't resist the feast that had become available. They used oxygen to transform manganese(II) into manganese(IV), along with some metabolic energy from the oxidation reaction. Unfortunately, there is a highly oxidized manganese by product in the reaction. A tiny fraction of the manganese gets oxidized all the way to manganese(VII), a very powerful terminal electron acceptor. A strong enough oxidant to abiotically oxidize trivalent chromium into hexavalent chromium. Now they had newly-formed hexavalent chromium in the ground water. Created by a perfectly natural process. Bring on the chemotherapy! A powerful chemical reductant, calcium polysulfide, was introduced. It did the job, reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. It also reduced a lot of manganese(IV) into manganese(II) while it was at it. Hex chrome is gone, but now you have a lot of manganese(II) Manganese(II) readily oxidizes back to manganese(IV) if the manganese oxidizers get half a chance, in the presence of oxygen. And next time a bunch of manganese(II) gets oxidized, it can produce more manganese(VII) by product which can abiotically oxidize the chromium back to hexavalent chromium. Does this create an addiction now to chemotherapy? They can keep the hex chrome in check, if the continue to apply more calcium polysulfide every year. If they asked for my advice, I'd tell them to switch it up with a new prescription. Start putting molasses or brewery waste at a higher elevation in the system. Let all that organic carbon reestablish the humic coatings that kept the trivalent chromium safely trapped where it could not be transformed into hex chrome. Even if the organic food added to the system facilitates manganese reduction to increase the supply of Mn2+, the trivalent chromium will not be accessible for oxidation when the manganese gets oxidized. SULFIDE OXIDIZERS MAKE SULFURIC ACID If they were to switch to adding organic matter, rather than polysulfide, as the prescription for chemotherapy to remediate hexavalent chromium, there is another pitfall of the treatment that will no longer be a problem. Sure, polysulfide is a strong reductant for both chromium and manganese. But in the presence of oxygen, bacteria will oxidized the sulfide into sulfuric acid. Each time they put in more polysulfide, they further acidify the system they are treating with the sulfuric acid formed from sulfide oxidation. Perhaps they already account for this, and are also performing "pH adjustment" to neutralize the sulfuric acid created in the process. |
| 07-04-2025 07:10 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2852) |
A cheap and simple way to help the sea. Imagine a simple wind turbine standing in very shallow sea water off the coast of Southeast Asia. Just like the old Dutch wind turbines that enabled them to farm below sea level, this simple turbine drives a water pump. The turbine is standing over a recently submerged peatland. Now below sea level, an enormous reservoir of gigatons of organic carbon sits down below the wind turbine. The wind turbine takes in sea water and drives it down a shallow tube into the sea floor. The boring cores acquired while they drilled to install the tube revealed the precise depth of a thick layer of pure peat, near the surface. Now the wind turbine drives sulfate-rich sea water down the tube into that submerged peat layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria were already in the water, and they exploit the abundance of organic carbon, using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize it for metabolic energy. Combustion or aerobic respiration of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the inorganic carbon product of oxidation. Anaerobic sulfate reduction oxidizes organic carbon, but the inorganic carbon product of that oxidation is ALKALINITY, not carbon dioxide. Sulfate reduction generates bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions as the inorganic carbon product of organic carbon oxidation. These help neutralize acidification. The wind turbine keeps driving more and more sea water down into the submerged peatland sediments. A continuous flow carries sulfate rich sea water further and further into the sediments. It contains PLENTY of sulfate to generate alkalinity. Eventually, that flow of water comes back into the sea, further offshore than the wind turbine, through the same seeps that used to carry submarine groundwater discharge into the sea when the peatland was still above sea level. That submarine groundwater discharge (SGD), or maybe now we should call it "submarine sea floor water discharge", is loaded with alkalinity. It also has a lot of nutrients that marine ecosystems need. It contains nitrogen, primarily as ammonium or dissolved organic nitrogen, and NOT much nitrate. It contains all the basic nutrient elements marine organisms need. This includes the elusive iron that so often limits the ability of plankton to feed the sea. The iron in this solution now flowing into the sea is primarily in forms that remain soluble, despite the above neutral pH of sea water. Organic alkalinity, arising from the oxyanions of organic acids, comes with metal complexing power. The iron in the submarine groundwater discharge is held in stable organometallic complexes that do not precipitate at sea water pH. Ferric iron ions in inorganic salts (ferric chloride, etc.) are not soluble at sea water pH. Ferric iron ions in organometallic complexes (ferric citrate, etc.) are soluble at the higher pH. Ferrous iron ions in inorganic salts (ferrous sulfate, etc.) are soluble at sea water pH. However, they are readily oxidized to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen, by iron oxidizing bacteria. And that ferric iron is NOT soluble at sea water pH. Ferrous iron in submarine groundwater discharge is often chelated by organic alkalinity. Within the organometallic complex, the reactive sites on the ferrous iron are occluded from access for oxidation. They remain soluble, and stable, protected from oxidation. The fisheries near the wind turbine are benefitting from the increased bioavailability of carbonate ions to form calcium carbonate shell. They are benefitting from the increased bioavailability of nitrogen as fertilizer. And they especially benefit from no longer being so limited by the bioavailibility of iron. Edited on 07-04-2025 07:20 |
| 07-04-2025 19:47 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(23487) |
Im a BM wrote: Buzzwords don't work. 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 |
| 07-04-2025 19:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23487) |
Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxidized nor oxygen. You cannot reduce carbon. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: No such word. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not 'reduced'. Sulfur is not a compound. Sulfur cannot be 'reduced'. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Sulfur is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Sulfur doesn't 'run out'. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Acids are not alkaline. Im a BM wrote: 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 |
| 07-04-2025 20:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23487) |
Im a BM wrote: No such thing. Im a BM wrote: Methane does need to be 'neutralized'. Im a BM wrote: Methane is not a fossil. Coal is not shipped from the middle east. Im a BM wrote: Methane occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor has any capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. 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 |
| 07-04-2025 20:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23487) |
Im a BM wrote: CO2 is not acidic. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: So?? Enjoy your soda! Im a BM wrote: Very little. Most just stays as dissolved CO2. Im a BM wrote: You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Hydrogen is not an ion. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Hydrogen is not an ion. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. It is not possible to have a pH below 1. You still don't understand pH. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Alikalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Water does that even better. Im a BM wrote: There is no havoc in marine ecosystems. Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Shellfish form shells just fine. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-04-2025 20:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23487) |
Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. 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 |
| 07-04-2025 20:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23487) |
Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. 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 | 755 | 15-01-2026 13:13 |
| Ocean "acidification" once and for all? | 31 | 04-01-2026 22:28 |
| 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 |