Remember me
▼ Content

Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification10-03-2022 01:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
RE: Improved management of wetlands10-03-2022 01:33
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
One geoengineering approach to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity to the ocean is simply to better manage them.

Rising sea level and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.

As sea level rises, the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced. There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments. Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts. Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.

When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid. These "acid sulfate soils" develop very low pH. They also export a lot of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter to surface waters. Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity for the sea as groundwater discharge now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water.
RE: Farming coastal deserts for alkalinity10-03-2022 01:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.

Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.

It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.

Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.

The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea.
10-03-2022 01:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
I already mentioned this before. You haven't defined a single term. You did not come here with any science. You came here with a religious dogma looking to preach.

sealover wrote: Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

Define: "Climate", "Climate Change", "Climate Change mitigation" and criteria for evaluating Climate Change mitigation.

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

A chemist would use the correct term "hydrocarbons." A chemist would know that no fossils are burned as fuel.

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

So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism.

Ask me how I know.

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

I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had.

sealover wrote: ...dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter.

This thread is a non-starter.

You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you?

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

Right. Natural geological processes can't possibly be the source of the ocean's alkalinity. No, of course not. It has to be coastal wetlands, Climate's cousin, I presume ... but then there are those pesky "nutrients" that will kill us all if the government doesn't swoop in and save us, right? How much should our taxes be increased in order to properly rectify the situation?

sealover wrote:Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil,

Are you talking about the hypoxic DEAD ZONES? You know, the ones that "scientists" assure us are worse than previously feared?

sealover wrote: If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.

Are any of these three "geoengineering" approaches free? ... or does each cost a lot of money? Wait, don't tell me, the most expensive one is the "preferred" one but it will require substantial government "investment" which can easily be funded by a small tax increase, am I right?

I have a much better idea. Just have the US Navy scoop up some sea water the next time it has a ship at sea, and simply measure the sea water's pH. When you discover that the sea water is still greater than 8.0 ... you can claim victory without having to do anything.
RE: Offshore drilling of pre-fossil fuel to neutralize ocean acidification10-03-2022 02:09
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Geoengineering to acquire alkalinity for the sea from carbon stored in wetlands can be done offshore.

The waterlogged, low oxygen soil conditions of wetlands prevent aerobic oxidation of organic matter by micro organisms. Dead organic matter in the wetland soil has centuries long residence time. Centuries of peat accumulation and carbon rich sediment can pile up to great depth.

Rising sea level has submerged large areas of coastal wetlands. These submerged lands no longer support wetland photosynthesis to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They no longer pile up new organic matter. They no longer discharge alkalinity to the sea from groundwater flows.

However, these areas are still an enormous reservoir of organic carbon stored in shallow sediments just below the surface of the sea. These deposits of pre-fossil fuel (i.e. wetland soil carbon not yet transformed by the earth into coal) contain many, many gigatons of stored organic carbon.

Offshore drilling of these pre-fossil fuel deposits could enable their exploitation as a nearly limitless source of alkalinity for the sea. Sea water could be pumped into the underlying sediments under pressure. This will drive sulfate in to the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment. Sulfate reduction will generate alkalinity which would be driven out into the sea as submarine groundwater discharge to marine ecosystems. Sufficient alkalinity for the sea could be generated long before the pre-fossil fuel runs out.
RE: technically not fossils, no10-03-2022 02:27
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:

A chemist would use the correct term "hydrocarbons." A chemist would know that no fossils are burned as fuel.

So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism.

I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had.


This thread is a non-starter.

You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you?


I would disagree with your characterization of me.

You are right that it is not technically correct to call coal a "fossil" fuel. In the strict geology definition of "fossil", the carbon from the dead organism is no longer present, having been replaced by silica.

On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say, "fossil fuel".

It is technically not correct to call the changes in sea chemistry "ocean acidification". There has been devastating depletion of the sea's alkalinity, but there are only microsites of the ocean where pH is less than 7. The ocean is not being acidified.

On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say "ocean acidification".

I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

Having to define terms that everyone understands... well, almost everyone understands seems like a deflection.
10-03-2022 03:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,

Define 'climate mitigation'. What is there to 'mitigate'? Climate has no value and it never varies. A desert climate is a desert climate. A marine climate is a marine climate. It will always be a marine climate. There is no global climate. Earth has many climates.
sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.

So...soot will be reduced?? Any good rainstorm will do that!
sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,

Done. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification"

You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
(i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy

Environmental chemotherapy????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You DO have some cute buzzwords!
sealover wrote:
and provide exogenous alkalinity

Exogenous alkalinity???!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There's another stupid buzzword!
sealover wrote:
to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime

No need. Lime is already in the sea.
sealover wrote:
or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter.

No need. Rocks are already in the sea.
sealover wrote:
It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.

No need. It's already there.
sealover wrote:
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity

Alkalinity is not a source, and it doesn't get stale.
sealover wrote:
entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.

Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy.

There is no oxidizing in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction by bacteria

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
generates inorganic carbon alkalinity

Carbon is not alkaline. It is an element. It is neither an acid nor an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.

Sulfate contains no carbon or 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.

You can't generate alkalinity. There is no such thing as oxidation in chemistry. Sulfate has no carbon. You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.

Buzzword fallacies. Denial of chemistry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:I would disagree with your characterization of me.

I don't think so. I think you agree entirely.

You do acknowledge that you have never defined any of your terms, right? All people intent on serious science discussion completely define all terms unambiguously, and you steadfastly refuse to define any term for which a definition has been requested. I'm sure you acknowledge this aspect of you that is completely antithetical to science.

You do acknowledge that you referred to "ocean acidification" and to the alkalinity of pure water, yes? This is hardly the stuff of a scientifically adept individual.

You acknowledge trying to post a document that is nothing but gibber-babble, while simultaneously claiming that you are trying to focus on simple, commonly understood terms, right? This is an obvious and glaringly dishonest contradiction. I'm sure you don't imagine that I am the only one who noticed.

sealover wrote:You are right that it is not technically correct to call coal a "fossil" fuel.

Yet when you found out that your audience here on this site is not your usual collection of fellow scientifically illiterate Marxists and that you can use the correct term "hydrocarbons", the capitalism-hating Marxist in you doubled-down on dishonesty and deliberately insisted on hammering away with the absurdly incorrect term "fossil fuels." You do recognize the deliberate dishonesty on your part, yes? "Deliberate" is the appropriate word here. An actual chemist would insist on using the word "hydrocarbons". You insist on pushing Marxism. I think we understand each other.

sealover wrote: In the strict geology definition of "fossil", the carbon from the dead organism is no longer present, having been replaced by silica.

You don't really understand what a fossil is, but then again, you aren't claiming to be a paleontologist so we can give you a pass.

A fossil is anything that provides information of the life that created it. Most fossils are mere impressions, meaning there is nothing there. Nothing doesn't burn very well. But even ossified stone doesn't burn well.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say, "fossil fuel".

Yes, everybody knows that you mean "Death to CAPITALISM!" I get it. Would it be too much to ask of you to shift this discussion away from your Global Warming religion and towards a more scientific discussion in which you use the correct terms instead of intentionally using incorrect terms in order to confuse people and then pretend to declare that everyone knows what you mean?

Can you take a moment out to be honest?

sealover wrote:It is technically not correct to call the changes in sea chemistry "ocean acidification". "
Better wording: "It is incorrect to use the term "ocean acidification."

Now, the ball is in your court. Why should any rational adult believe your notion that there are any changes occurring to the ocean that are of any concern whatsoever?

[quote]sealover wrote:There has been devastating depletion of the sea's alkalinity,

Nope. This is where you either support this claim or you welcome my calling you a lair.

You just pulled this schytt out of your azz and I'm calling you on it. Why should any rational adult believe this? Hint: screaming "Power to the workers!" is insufficient.

sealover wrote: ... but there are only microsites of the ocean where pH is less than 7.

Why should any rational adult believe that there is any "less than 7.0 pH water" anywhere in the ocean? Why does it even matter?

sealover wrote:On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say "ocean acidification".

You pretend to speak for everyone. That alone gets your argument summarily discarded.

I happen to know that you have no idea what you are talking about, so we have to exclude you from the list. I have no idea what you mean and I can't get you to define your terms so you need to scratch me off the list as well. Would you like to bet me that I can find others?

Define your terms and use the correct terms. Your lame excuses that are entirely dependent upon you pretending to speak for everyone else have already grown tired.

sealover wrote:I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.

If I were one of your students, it wouldn't be long before the other students were turning to me for confirmation that what you are saying is actually correct.

My hope for humanity is that you are lying about being a teacher.

Notice that you still have not defined any of the terms requested.

Notice that you have not breached any science. I'm waiting.

Notice that you have only made rookie blunders and used incorrect terms. When are we going to see any evidence that you are not a totally scientifically illiterate moron?

When will that actually begin?
10-03-2022 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity to the ocean is simply to better manage them.

You don't generate alkalinity. You can't manage the oceans.
sealover wrote:
Rising sea level

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.

Alkalinity is not an output. What agriculture? You talk a lot about strong acids here. What plants are you thinking of????
sealover wrote:
As sea level rises,

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced.

Conclusion based on random number. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There is now less hydraulic gradient

No such thing. Hydraulics is not a gradient.
sealover wrote:
during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity

You cannot extract alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

Attempted proof by buzzword.
sealover wrote:
When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts.

Hydraulics is not a gradient.
sealover wrote:
Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.

You seem to like a lot of pumping.
sealover wrote:
When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen.

Pyrite is exposed to oxygen everywhere anyway. It's in the soil everywhere. It's very pretty in Idaho mountain streams. BTW, did you know that water contains oxygen??
sealover wrote:
Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid.

Wups. Forgot that hydrogen again!
sealover wrote:
These "acid sulfate soils"

Sulfates are not an acid.
sealover wrote:
develop very low pH.

Why would it? No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
They also export a lot of acidity,

You can't export acidity.
sealover wrote:
salinity,

You can't export salinity.
sealover wrote:
and dissolved organic matter to surface waters.

Already there. Nothing to dissolve.
sealover wrote:
Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity

You can't generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
for the sea as groundwater discharge

Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water.

Attempted conclusion by buzzword.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 03:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Geoengineering to acquire alkalinity for the sea from carbon stored in wetlands can be done offshore.

You cannot 'acquire alkalinity' from the sea. Define 'offshore'.
sealover wrote:
The waterlogged, low oxygen soil conditions of wetlands prevent aerobic oxidation of organic matter by micro organisms. Dead organic matter in the wetland soil has centuries long residence time. Centuries of peat accumulation and carbon rich sediment can pile up to great depth.

So?
sealover wrote:
Rising sea level has submerged large areas of coastal wetlands.

What rising sea level?
sealover wrote:
These submerged lands no longer support wetland photosynthesis to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What is wrong with carbon dioxide?
sealover wrote:
They no longer pile up new organic matter.

Conclusion based on random number of type randU.
sealover wrote:
They no longer discharge alkalinity to the sea from groundwater flows.

You cannot 'discharge' alkalinity. Groundwater isn't a flow.
sealover wrote:
However, these areas are still an enormous reservoir of organic carbon stored in shallow sediments just below the surface of the sea.

Sounds like salted soil to me.
sealover wrote:
These deposits of pre-fossil fuel

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
sealover wrote:
(i.e. wetland soil carbon not yet transformed by the earth into coal)

The origin of coal is unknown. You are speculating.
sealover wrote:
contain many, many gigatons of stored organic carbon.

Making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Offshore drilling of these pre-fossil fuel deposits

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
could enable their exploitation as a nearly limitless source of alkalinity for the sea.

Alkalinity isn't a source.
sealover wrote:
Sea water could be pumped into the underlying sediments under pressure.

Why salt the sediments?
sealover wrote:
This will drive sulfate in to the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

Seawater isn't a sulfate.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction will generate alkalinity which would be driven out into the sea as submarine groundwater discharge to marine ecosystems. Sufficient alkalinity for the sea could be generated long before the pre-fossil fuel runs out.

You can't reduce a sulfate. You cannot generate alkalinity. Groundwater isn't a discharge. Fossils aren't used as fuel. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.

Argument by repetition fallacy. You are just chanting now.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 03:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

A chemist would use the correct term "hydrocarbons." A chemist would know that no fossils are burned as fuel.

So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism.

I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had.


This thread is a non-starter.

You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you?


I would disagree with your characterization of me.

I wouldn't. He is spot on. You're a religious nut from the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming.
sealover wrote:
You are right that it is not technically correct to call coal a "fossil" fuel.

Coal is not a fossil. There is no 'technical' about it.
sealover wrote:
In the strict geology definition of "fossil", the carbon from the dead organism is no longer present, having been replaced by silica.

Coal is not silica.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say, "fossil fuel".

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
It is technically not correct to call the changes in sea chemistry "ocean acidification".

No 'technical' about it. You haven't shown ANY change in sea chemistry (it's the same as always!). It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
There has been devastating depletion of the sea's alkalinity,

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
but there are only microsites of the ocean where pH is less than 7.

So?
sealover wrote:
The ocean is not being acidified.

On the other hand, everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say "ocean acidification".

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
sealover wrote:
I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

Inversion. As a student of mine, you flunk. You are continuing to deny chemistry, physics, history, mathematics, and like to play semantics games. Your own religions have closed your mind and you cannot learn.
sealover wrote:
Having to define terms that everyone understands...
well, almost everyone understands seems like a deflection.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Organic alkalinity from wetlands10-03-2022 04:00
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[/quote]
Groundwater is not a discharge.
[quote]

There are always two sides to a disagreement.

A good reality check would be to Google "submarine groundwater discharge"

It would be too exhausting to have to defend the definition of terms.


About 75% of the alkalinity discharged from coastal wetlands via groundwater is comprised of bicarbonate ions, and much lesser amounts of bicarbonate ions.

The other 25% of the alkalinity in groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.

Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

Organic alkalinity is of ecological significance because organic anions often have metal complexing capacity. Organic alkalinity can form chelation complexes with iron to keep it soluble and bioavailble. Inorganic carbon alkalinity (bicarbonate or carbonate) cannot do this.

Organic alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is accompanied by organically-complexed ferric or ferrous iron, essential for the nutrition of marine ecosystems.
10-03-2022 04:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:

Groundwater is not a discharge.


There are always two sides to a disagreement.

A good reality check would be to Google "submarine groundwater discharge"

It would be too exhausting to have to defend the definition of terms.


About 75% of the alkalinity discharged from coastal wetlands via groundwater is comprised of bicarbonate ions, and much lesser amounts of bicarbonate ions.

The other 25% of the alkalinity in groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.

Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

Organic alkalinity is of ecological significance because organic anions often have metal complexing capacity. Organic alkalinity can form chelation complexes with iron to keep it soluble and bioavailble. Inorganic carbon alkalinity (bicarbonate or carbonate) cannot do this.

Organic alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is accompanied by organically-complexed ferric or ferrous iron, essential for the nutrition of marine ecosystems.
10-03-2022 04:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:

Groundwater is not a discharge.
[quote]


About 75% of the alkalinity discharged from coastal wetlands via groundwater is comprised of bicarbonate ions, and much lesser amounts of bicarbonate ions.

The other 25% of the alkalinity in groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.


Proof that this guy has no understanding of chemistry, using "bicarbonate" twice in the same sentence. And it doesn't even make sense! Doesn't this guy even know about carbonate? The last shred of any credibility is now gone.

CORRECTION bicarbonate >> carbonate, both are "inorganic carbon alkalinity"

bicarbonate + carbonate = 75% of SGD total alkalinity

ORGANIC alkalinity = 25% of SGD total alkalinity
RE: Coastal Desert Chemistry CAUTION10-03-2022 05:19
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.

Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.

It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.

Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.

The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea.



A word of caution about coastal desert chemistry.

You won't have to wait for the live wetland ecosystem to establish before you'll generate a whole lot of alkalinity.

Rewetting a dry desert soil with sea water could result in extremely high initial pH. A toxic witch's brew will be the immediate result, although capable of rapid self attenuation. An exceptionally high pH initial mix could contain toxic concentrations of arsenic, boron, selenium, even hexavalent chromium (of natural origin).

Within seconds of initial contact between the dry desert soil and applied sea water, the soil becomes a high pH chemical trap for CO2.

The pH will decline soon as alkali hydroxides absorb CO2 to become carbonates.

Self attenuation with decreasing pH as CO2 is absorbed will soon sequester arsenic, borate, etc. out of solution.
10-03-2022 05:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:A good reality check would be to Google "submarine groundwater discharge"

Relying on Google is a terrible idea, but it is the go-to move of the desperately ignorant looking to become 5-minute PhDs.

sealover wrote:It would be too honest, and self-defeating, to define any of my religious dogma.

I realize, but could you make an effort?

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity is of ecological significance because organic anions often have metal complexing capacity.

You haven't provided a convincing case that this is of any concern to anybody for any reason. Why should any rational adult believe that what you define as "organic alkalinity" is of any concern?


sealover wrote: Organic alkalinity can form chelation complexes with iron to keep it soluble and bioavailble. Inorganic carbon alkalinity (bicarbonate or carbonate) cannot do this.

This wasn't even worth the bandwidth you wasted to write it. If you aren't going to explain why you are bombarding this board with worthless chemical trivia, your intention must be presumed to be to sufficiently confuse your audience so that they forget that you have no point.

I happen to be tracking your complete lack of any point.

sealover wrote:Organic alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is accompanied by organically-complexed ferric or ferrous iron, essentiall for the nutrition of marine ecosystems.

So answer me this, is this the hypoxic water equivalent of "man-made CO2 vs naturally occurring CO2"? ... you know, like there is some huge difference where there isn't any difference? Does sea water somehow distinguish between "organic" alkalinity and "inorganic" alkalinity?
RE: Sea water has 2650-2950 ppm Sulfate10-03-2022 06:00
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Hopefully, it does not cause too much confusion that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable as a name for the input of sulfate bearing sea water into low oxygen wetland sediment.

Sea water contains from 2650-2690 ppm sulfate.

In contrast, sea water contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen.

The energy yield for microorganisms who make their living oxidizing organic carbon is greatest when oxygen is used as oxidant (aerobic respiration).

Aerobic respiration of (reduced) organic carbon generates carbon dioxide as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

Much lower energy yield is acquired when sulfate is used by bacteria to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

At only 8-11 ppm, oxygen gets depleted very quickly in carbon rich sediment.

With 2650-2950 ppm sulfate remaining when the oxygen runs out, the next best available oxidant is most abundant, albeit for a much smaller energy yield.

One mole of organic carbon generates two moles of alkalinity when sulfate is used as oxidant by sulfate reducing bacteria.
10-03-2022 06:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Hopefully, it does not cause too much confusion that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable as a name for the input of sulfate bearing sea water into low oxygen wetland sediment.

Of course it wouldn't be confusing, or redundant, to write "sea water-bearing sea water" or "sulfate-bearing sulfate" because everybody knows that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable as names in that regard.

It goes without saying.

sealover wrote:Sea water contains from 2650-2690 ppm sulfate.

Exactly, you could write "Sea water contains 2650-2690 ppm sea water" or "Sulfate contains 2650-2690 ppm sulfate" for the reasons stated above.

sealover wrote:In contrast, sea water contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen.

"In contrast, sulfate contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen." Totally clear.

sealover wrote:The energy yield for microorganisms who make their living oxidizing organic carbon is greatest when oxygen is used as oxidant (aerobic respiration).

Who do you believe measures the energy yield for organic carbon-oxidizing microorganisms?


sealover wrote:At only 8-11 ppm, oxygen gets depleted very quickly in carbon rich sediment.With 2650-2950 ppm sulfate remaining when the oxygen runs out, the next best available oxidant is most abundant, albeit for a much smaller energy yield.One mole of organic carbon generates two moles of alkalinity when sulfate is used as oxidant by sulfate reducing bacteria.

This is amazingly boring trivia. I was hoping you would have a point related to why anyone should care.
10-03-2022 07:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...repairing damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Groundwater is not a discharge.


There are always two sides to a disagreement.

Yeah. Understanding chemistry and science, and you just spewing meaningless buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
A good reality check would be to Google "submarine groundwater discharge"

Google is not God. Google is not a reference either.
sealover wrote:
It would be too exhausting to have to defend the definition of terms.

It is YOU making semantics fallacies to defend your meaningless buzzwords. You have only yourself to blame.
sealover wrote:
About 75% of the alkalinity discharged

Alkalinity is not a discharge. Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
from coastal wetlands via groundwater is comprised of bicarbonate ions, and much lesser amounts of bicarbonate ions.

No. I've already covered this. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The other 25% of the alkalinity in groundwater discharge

Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers. Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.

Alkalinity is not organic or inorganic. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

Acid is not organic nor inorganic. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Organic alkalinity is of ecological significance because organic anions often have metal complexing capacity.

Nonsense statement. Buzzword fallacies. Try English.
sealover wrote:
Organic alkalinity can form chelation complexes with iron to keep it soluble and bioavailble.

Nonsense statement. Buzzword fallacies. Try English.
sealover wrote:
Inorganic carbon alkalinity (bicarbonate or carbonate) cannot do this.

Alkalinity is neither organic nor inorganic. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Organic alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is accompanied by organically-complexed ferric or ferrous iron, essential for the nutrition of marine ecosystems.

Buzzword fallacies. Nonsense statement. You're gonna have to use English.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 08:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:

Groundwater is not a discharge.



About 75% of the alkalinity discharged from coastal wetlands via groundwater is comprised of bicarbonate ions, and much lesser amounts of bicarbonate ions.

The other 25% of the alkalinity in groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.


Proof that this guy has no understanding of chemistry, using "bicarbonate" twice in the same sentence. And it doesn't even make sense! Doesn't this guy even know about carbonate? The last shred of any credibility is now gone.

CORRECTION bicarbonate >> carbonate, both are "inorganic carbon alkalinity"

bicarbonate + carbonate = 75% of SGD total alkalinity

ORGANIC alkalinity = 25% of SGD total alkalinity

Argument from randU fallacies. Quoting is severely damaged. You're going to have to get a handle on this. It's not that hard.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 08:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
...deleted previous post that you are responding to yourself with...

A word of caution about coastal desert chemistry.
[quote]sealover wrote:
You won't have to wait for the live wetland ecosystem to establish before you'll generate a whole lot of alkalinity.

You can't generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Rewetting a dry desert soil with sea water could result in extremely high initial pH. A toxic witch's brew will be the immediate result, although capable of rapid self attenuation. An exceptionally high pH initial mix could contain toxic concentrations of arsenic, boron, selenium, even hexavalent chromium (of natural origin).

Within seconds of initial contact between the dry desert soil and applied sea water, the soil becomes a high pH chemical trap for CO2.

Gibber-babble. Did you know it rains in the desert? Perhaps you're dumb enough to camp in a low area out of the wind.
sealover wrote:
The pH will decline soon as alkali hydroxides absorb CO2 to become carbonates.

Carbonates are generally alkaline, dude.
sealover wrote:
Self attenuation with decreasing pH as CO2 is absorbed will soon sequester arsenic, borate, etc. out of solution.

Buzzword fallacies. Solution of what? Nah. Don't bother answering. It's just going to be more made up shit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 08:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Hopefully, it does not cause too much confusion that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable

Sea water is not sulfate. They are not interchangeable.
sealover wrote:
as a name for the input of sulfate bearing sea water into low oxygen wetland sediment.

What sulfate?
sealover wrote:
Sea water contains from 2650-2690 ppm sulfate.

Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers.
sealover wrote:
In contrast, sea water contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen.

Uh...water is H2O. You know...OXYGEN. Water itself is 88% oxygen (by weight)!
sealover wrote:
The energy yield for microorganisms who make their living oxidizing organic carbon is greatest when oxygen is used as oxidant (aerobic respiration).

WTF else would be used besides oxygen?? Oxidizing does not exist in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Aerobic respiration of (reduced) organic carbon generates carbon dioxide as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

Combining oxygen with carbon is a reduction reaction. Carbon by itself is not reduced. Carbon is an element. It is not in and of itself 'organic'.
sealover wrote:
Much lower energy yield is acquired when sulfate is used by bacteria to oxidize organic carbon.

Sulfate has oxygen, dumbass. There is no oxidizing in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

You cannot reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced. You can't generate alkalinity. Carbon dioxide is not organic.
sealover wrote:
At only 8-11 ppm, oxygen gets depleted very quickly in carbon rich sediment.

Nonsense statement. Unit errors. Try English.
sealover wrote:
With 2650-2950 ppm sulfate remaining when the oxygen runs out, the next best available oxidant is most abundant, albeit for a much smaller energy yield.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no energy yield in buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
One mole of organic carbon generates two moles of alkalinity

Unit error. Aklalinity is not measured in moles. Carbon is not organic. It is an element.
sealover wrote:
when sulfate is used as oxidant by sulfate reducing bacteria.

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 09:44
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
As sea level rises, the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced. There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments. Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.

The sea has not gone up where I live at all.not even a little bit.Again where is this crap happening?
RE: Resist Definition Mandates!10-03-2022 22:14
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
I already mentioned this before. You haven't defined a single term. You did not come here with any science. You came here with a religious dogma looking to preach.

Define: "Climate", "Climate Change", "Climate Change mitigation" and criteria for evaluating Climate Change mitigation.

So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism.

I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had.

You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you?


-------------------------------------------------------------------

RESIST DEFINITION MANATES! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

Fellow patriots! We cannot allow the Communist Cancel Culture to win!

They would silence our voices or demand that we define all our terms before being allowed to speak.

RESIST DEFINITION MANDATES!

This is about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Besides, anyone who wants to do a little fact checking can find the definition most widely accepted by the scientific community.
10-03-2022 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I already mentioned this before. You haven't defined a single term. You did not come here with any science. You came here with a religious dogma looking to preach.

Define: "Climate", "Climate Change", "Climate Change mitigation" and criteria for evaluating Climate Change mitigation.

So you are a scientifically illiterate Marxist whose objective is to frighten people into a panic to end capitalism.

I hope you realize that you have discarded any credibility that you might have otherwise had.

You simply copy-pasted this text on someone else's order, didn't you?


-------------------------------------------------------------------

RESIST DEFINITION MANATES! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

You are free to not define your terms. Of course, using them only results in void argument fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Fellow patriots! We cannot allow the Communist Cancel Culture to win!

Cancel what?? Meaningless drivel?? Are you so inclined to put out meaningless drivel that you want to fight for it????
sealover wrote:
They would silence our voices or demand that we define all our terms before being allowed to speak.

You are not being silenced. You are free to spew void arguments all day. I'll call you on this fallacy, of course. You are also free to define the terms you use.
sealover wrote:
RESIST DEFINITION MANDATES!

No one is mandating you define your terms. You are perfectly free to speak drivel in meaningless buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
This is about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

You are free to speak. Let's see you do it.
sealover wrote:
Besides, anyone who wants to do a little fact checking can find the definition most widely accepted by the scientific community.

Learn what 'fact' means. A fact is not a Universal Truth nor a proof. 'Fact checking' is nothing more than verifying against some propaganda.

Science isn't a community. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is nothing more than that.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Coastal desert hexavalent chromium hazard11-03-2022 02:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.

Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.

It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.

Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.

The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea.



A word of caution about coastal desert chemistry.

You won't have to wait for the live wetland ecosystem to establish before you'll generate a whole lot of alkalinity.

Rewetting a dry desert soil with sea water could result in extremely high initial pH. A toxic witch's brew will be the immediate result, although capable of rapid self attenuation. An exceptionally high pH initial mix could contain toxic concentrations of arsenic, boron, selenium, even hexavalent chromium (of natural origin).

Within seconds of initial contact between the dry desert soil and applied sea water, the soil becomes a high pH chemical trap for CO2.

The pH will decline soon as alkali hydroxides absorb CO2 to become carbonates.

Self attenuation with decreasing pH as CO2 is absorbed will soon sequester arsenic, borate, etc. out of solution.


__________________________________________________________

Naturally-occurring hexavalent chromium can be found beneath desert soils. It is usually limited to the margins where the last inputs of groundwater dried up
as it became desert.

Hexavalent chromium is not our friend.

Trivalent chromium is common in many soils. It is benign, and not easily transformed into the carcinogenic hexavalent form.

The overwhelming majority of chromium in desert soil is trivalent Cr(III) occluded within the crystal lattice of rock minerals. A small amount of chromium(III) is present in material coating the surface of larger particles.

Before becoming desert, photosynthesis once provided the soil with organic carbon. The most enduring fraction of that soil organic matter were humic acids coating soil particle surfaces. Humic acids have cation exchange capacity to adsorb chromium(III) into tightly bound complexes. Occluded within the humic coating, the chromium(III) was never exposed to oxidation into hexavalent chromium.

Also cycled along with chromium(III), manganese adsorbed to humic acid cation exchange sites as a tightly bound complex. Manganese(II) is far more soluble than the oxidized form, manganese(IV). Manganese(II) is the mobile form that adsorbed to humic coatings on soil particle surfaces. With its reactive sites occluded from oxidation by formation of inner sphere complexes with organic ligands, manganese(II) remained intact in its chemically reduced form.

It's not easy to oxidize chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium. Oxygen isn't a powerful enough oxidant to do it. Hexavalent chromium rarely occurs in nature.

But there is an oxidant generated as a by-product during manganese oxidation, far more powerful than oxygen.

Under aerobic conditions, some bacteria acquire their energy by oxidizing manganese(II) into manganese(IV). These chemoautotrophic can use carbon dioxide as their carbon source and manganese oxidation as their energy source.

During oxidation of manganese(II) to manganese(IV), a tiny bit of highly oxidized manganese(VII) is generated as by product.

Manganese(VII) is a strong enough oxidant to turn chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium through purely abiotic mechanisms.

Manganese(II) and chromium(III) lived happily side-by-side within organic carbon matrix of humic coatings for centuries.

When the land became desert, input of new organic carbon ceased.

As the chromium(III)/manganese(II) bearing humic coatings decomposed, they no longer had the cation exchange capacity of the organic matrix to hold them or prevent their oxidation.

As manganese(II) oxidized to manganese(IV) by oxygen, by product manganese(VII) oxidized chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium.

----------------------------------------
Government Oversight and Mandated Remediation Caused Hex Chrome Hazard.

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

Picture a Superfund site. A former laboratory that once handled extremely hazardous substances. The lab has been shut down for decades.

That laboratory used to drain their sinks into a septic tank on site.

None of the deadly stuff went down the drain. Just the usual lab sink waste.

That laboratory waste water included hexavalent chromium, commonly used as an oxidant in laboratory procedures. It also included organic carbon, some of which came in from the toilets.

When the hexavalent chromium entered the septic tank, it was highly soluble and mobile. It traveled into the leaching field and along subsurface flow paths.

The hexavalent chromium had a very short half life after it left the laboratory.

After it stalled somewhere along the subsurface flow path and was adsorbed by soil organic matter, it was reduced to Cr(III). Organic carbon is a good reductant.

For decades the input of organic carbon and chromium continued.

Subsurface flow paths were loaded up with organic carbon, chromium(III) and manganese(IV).

When the lab sewer system was taken out of service, the supply of new organic carbon was cut off.

Like the desert margin, as the organic matter decomposed and exposed chromium and manganese to oxidation, hexavalent chromium was generated.
RE: Fact check: manganese(II) not Mn(IV)11-03-2022 03:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
For decades the input of organic carbon and chromium continued.

Subsurface flow paths were loaded up with organic carbon, chromium(III) and manganese(IV).

When the lab sewer system was taken out of service, the supply of new organic carbon was cut off.

Like the desert margin, as the organic matter decomposed and exposed chromium and manganese to oxidation, hexavalent chromium was generated.


FACT CHECK: it is manganese(II), not manganese(IV) that was bound to the humus and later oxidized.
RE: energy yield from multiple oxidants/reductants11-03-2022 04:08
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

Aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria get the most energy by using oxygen to oxidize hydrogen and generate water.

Hydrogen is such a strong reductant that even a very weak oxidant can be used to yield energy.

Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

They generated methane gas for a slight energetic payoff.

Oxygen is such a strong oxidant that even a very weak reductant can be used to yield energy. Oxygen is the only naturally available oxidant strong enough to oxidize nitrite to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria, for a slight energetic payoff.

The most commonly used reductants in nature, in order of strength:

H2 > H2S > elemental-S > organic-S > iron(II) = Mn(II) > ammonia > nitrite

An even weaker reductant is used for most photosynthesis. Water is oxidized to oxygen gas in order to reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

The most commonly used oxidants in nature, in order of strength:

O2 > nitrate > nitrite > iron(III) = Mn(IV) > sulfate > carbon dioxide

Competitive advantage goes to the organism that can best exploit the available reductants and oxidants.

So long as oxygen is available, nitrate reducers, iron/manganese reducers, sulfate reducers, methanogens, etc, are at a disadvantage.

So long as hydrogen is available, sulfur oxidizers, iron/manganese oxidizers, nitrogen oxidizers, etc., are all at a disadvantage.

This is just a short list of elements used by microorganisms for oxidation/reduction reactions. The complete list includes everything from arsenic to selenium.
11-03-2022 04:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

I'd mention to you that as you traverse the internet, you will encounter people who don't much care for Darwin's theory of evolution, and might dismiss your argument if you are using Darwin's theory as support for your argument.

Your point is that microorganisms use multiple reductants to acquire energy, regardless of why they are thus able. References to Darwin's theory are unnecessary and I recommend omitting them as such.

sealover wrote:Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

My experience is the opposite. Some oxidants are much weaker than others. Same for reductants.

sealover wrote:The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

Do you have a point or is this your offering of trivia?

sealover wrote:Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

Be prepared for the possibility of being asked by one of those who are less than fond of Darwin's theory how you know this and whether you were there.

.
RE: the long game11-03-2022 04:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

I'd mention to you that as you traverse the internet, you will encounter people who don't much care for Darwin's theory of evolution, and might dismiss your argument if you are using Darwin's theory as support for your argument.

Your point is that microorganisms use multiple reductants to acquire energy, regardless of why they are thus able. References to Darwin's theory are unnecessary and I recommend omitting them as such.

sealover wrote:Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

My experience is the opposite. Some oxidants are much weaker than others. Same for reductants.

sealover wrote:The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

Do you have a point or is this your offering of trivia?

sealover wrote:Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

Be prepared for the possibility of being asked by one of those who are less than fond of Darwin's theory how you know this and whether you were there.

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the tip.

So, here's the long game.

Newcomers visit this site every day, take one quick look, and never come back.

Just the titles of all the recent threads make it clear that there is no useful information to be learned about "climate debate".

From now on, I just need to keep the new discussion threads visible to the new comer. It won't require prolific writing.

Soon enough, people will join the discussion who...

What can I say?

I won't have to define every term for them.

They might even actually understand the science.

A useful discussion, free of insults and absurd deflections, could begin.

I expect things to improve around here soon.
11-03-2022 05:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Newcomers visit this site every day, take one quick look, and never come back.

I wish I were as omniscient as you are. It must be nice.

sealover wrote:From now on, I just need to keep the new discussion threads visible to the new comer. It won't require prolific writing.

So you plan is to spam the board? That could get you banned, jussayn, but knock yourself out.

Do you view yourself as just the Climate Justice Superhero to defend Climate's honor in all dark corners of the internet? Welcome aboard.

sealover wrote:Soon enough, people will join the discussion who...What can I say? I won't have to define every term for them.

You are describing a religious congregation. Thank you for making my point so clearly.

sealover wrote:They might even actually understand the science.

Too funny! I see that you don't realize your blunder, but what you believe you wrote is "They might even actually understand science" ... but you added the definite article "the" because that is the name of your WACKY religious dogma. Christians refer to their religious dogma as "The Word of God." You refer to your religious dogma as "The Science" (correctly pronounced "The Thienth"). All of your congregation are either scientifically illiterate morons or they are flat out science deniers. None know any science, but all KNOW "The Science." I'll be happy to roast them over an open flame. Bring 'em on. Bring 'em all on. We'll have a ball.

There's a reason you will never define your terms: no religion ever does. Religion is completely unfalsifiable.

While we're on the subject of your religion, what are your favorite Climate prayers?
11-03-2022 10:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.

Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.

It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.

Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.

The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea.



A word of caution about coastal desert chemistry.

You won't have to wait for the live wetland ecosystem to establish before you'll generate a whole lot of alkalinity.

Rewetting a dry desert soil with sea water could result in extremely high initial pH. A toxic witch's brew will be the immediate result, although capable of rapid self attenuation. An exceptionally high pH initial mix could contain toxic concentrations of arsenic, boron, selenium, even hexavalent chromium (of natural origin).

Within seconds of initial contact between the dry desert soil and applied sea water, the soil becomes a high pH chemical trap for CO2.

The pH will decline soon as alkali hydroxides absorb CO2 to become carbonates.

Self attenuation with decreasing pH as CO2 is absorbed will soon sequester arsenic, borate, etc. out of solution.


__________________________________________________________

Naturally-occurring hexavalent chromium can be found beneath desert soils. It is usually limited to the margins where the last inputs of groundwater dried up
as it became desert.

Hexavalent chromium is not our friend.

Trivalent chromium is common in many soils. It is benign, and not easily transformed into the carcinogenic hexavalent form.

The overwhelming majority of chromium in desert soil is trivalent Cr(III) occluded within the crystal lattice of rock minerals. A small amount of chromium(III) is present in material coating the surface of larger particles.

Before becoming desert, photosynthesis once provided the soil with organic carbon. The most enduring fraction of that soil organic matter were humic acids coating soil particle surfaces. Humic acids have cation exchange capacity to adsorb chromium(III) into tightly bound complexes. Occluded within the humic coating, the chromium(III) was never exposed to oxidation into hexavalent chromium.

Also cycled along with chromium(III), manganese adsorbed to humic acid cation exchange sites as a tightly bound complex. Manganese(II) is far more soluble than the oxidized form, manganese(IV). Manganese(II) is the mobile form that adsorbed to humic coatings on soil particle surfaces. With its reactive sites occluded from oxidation by formation of inner sphere complexes with organic ligands, manganese(II) remained intact in its chemically reduced form.

It's not easy to oxidize chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium. Oxygen isn't a powerful enough oxidant to do it. Hexavalent chromium rarely occurs in nature.

But there is an oxidant generated as a by-product during manganese oxidation, far more powerful than oxygen.

Under aerobic conditions, some bacteria acquire their energy by oxidizing manganese(II) into manganese(IV). These chemoautotrophic can use carbon dioxide as their carbon source and manganese oxidation as their energy source.

During oxidation of manganese(II) to manganese(IV), a tiny bit of highly oxidized manganese(VII) is generated as by product.

Manganese(VII) is a strong enough oxidant to turn chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium through purely abiotic mechanisms.

Manganese(II) and chromium(III) lived happily side-by-side within organic carbon matrix of humic coatings for centuries.

When the land became desert, input of new organic carbon ceased.

As the chromium(III)/manganese(II) bearing humic coatings decomposed, they no longer had the cation exchange capacity of the organic matrix to hold them or prevent their oxidation.

As manganese(II) oxidized to manganese(IV) by oxygen, by product manganese(VII) oxidized chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium.

----------------------------------------
Government Oversight and Mandated Remediation Caused Hex Chrome Hazard.

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

Picture a Superfund site. A former laboratory that once handled extremely hazardous substances. The lab has been shut down for decades.

That laboratory used to drain their sinks into a septic tank on site.

None of the deadly stuff went down the drain. Just the usual lab sink waste.

That laboratory waste water included hexavalent chromium, commonly used as an oxidant in laboratory procedures. It also included organic carbon, some of which came in from the toilets.

When the hexavalent chromium entered the septic tank, it was highly soluble and mobile. It traveled into the leaching field and along subsurface flow paths.

The hexavalent chromium had a very short half life after it left the laboratory.

After it stalled somewhere along the subsurface flow path and was adsorbed by soil organic matter, it was reduced to Cr(III). Organic carbon is a good reductant.

For decades the input of organic carbon and chromium continued.

Subsurface flow paths were loaded up with organic carbon, chromium(III) and manganese(IV).

When the lab sewer system was taken out of service, the supply of new organic carbon was cut off.

Like the desert margin, as the organic matter decomposed and exposed chromium and manganese to oxidation, hexavalent chromium was generated.

More irrelevant meaningless bullshit. You are not convincing. You are buzzword happy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2022 10:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

I'd mention to you that as you traverse the internet, you will encounter people who don't much care for Darwin's theory of evolution, and might dismiss your argument if you are using Darwin's theory as support for your argument.

Your point is that microorganisms use multiple reductants to acquire energy, regardless of why they are thus able. References to Darwin's theory are unnecessary and I recommend omitting them as such.

sealover wrote:Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

My experience is the opposite. Some oxidants are much weaker than others. Same for reductants.

sealover wrote:The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

Do you have a point or is this your offering of trivia?

sealover wrote:Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

Be prepared for the possibility of being asked by one of those who are less than fond of Darwin's theory how you know this and whether you were there.

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the tip.

So, here's the long game.

Newcomers visit this site every day, take one quick look, and never come back.

How do you know this? Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Just the titles of all the recent threads make it clear that there is no useful information to be learned about "climate debate".

What's to learn about the Church of Global Warming. It isn't debate, it's preaching.
sealover wrote:
From now on, I just need to keep the new discussion threads visible to the new comer. It won't require prolific writing.

Keep the flame lit for the faithful believers, eh?
sealover wrote:
Soon enough, people will join the discussion who...

What can I say?

I won't have to define every term for them.

So you are hoping that others will show up who, like you, use meaningless buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
They might even actually understand the science.

You deny science. Specially, you have already discarded the 1st law of thermodynamics, Gibb's law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and made a mockery of Tysan's work.

You also deny statistical mathematics.

sealover wrote:
A useful discussion, free of insults and absurd deflections, could begin.

You are not having a discussion. You are spewing random phrases filled with buzzwords to fake looking smart. Sorry, dude. There are actual scientists here. There are actual mathematicians here. Your bullshit isn't going to cut it.
sealover wrote:
I expect things to improve around here soon.

Why do you figure the spewing meaningless buzzwords is an improvement?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Reductants, oxidants, origin of photosynthesis11-03-2022 12:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years.

There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days.

There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment.

Hydrogen gas for example.

All a bacteria needed was an oxidant to take advantage of it.

Oxidants were scarce in those days.

No oxidants had yet been generated by photosynthesis.

The earth did provide a few. There was some nitrate here and there, some sulfate, some iron and manganese in oxidized state. But not much. A few localized niches for nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., where the earth provided oxidants.

One very weak oxidant that was abundant was carbon dioxide.

The first methanogenic bacteria evolved to couple hydrogen oxidation to carbon dioxide reduction. The product of their metabolism was methane gas.

The earth had no ozone shield to protect from ultraviolet.

Manganese was particularly sensitive to photo oxidation by sunlight.

Where sunlight photooxidized manganese(II) to manganese(IV), that manganese(IV) could then be used by microorganisms as oxidant.

After they used the manganese(IV) to oxidize (hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, iron, carbon, etc., they had manganese(II) leftover as a waste product.

Somehow, a bacteria had manganese(II) inside the cell that got photooxidized to manganese(IV). Somehow it evolved into recycling the manganese within the cell, reoxidizing it with sunlight over and over.

Somehow it evolved into an organic matrix structure to hold the manganese atom in place.

It wasn't photosynthesis. It was just intracellular photoxidation to generate an oxidant.

Somehow, that organic structure to hold the manganese atom expanded into a light harvesting apparatus. Able to use blue light rather than ultraviolet, and be competitive in zones of lower light intensity. Expanded further to even be able to use red light, making it competitive in even dimmer environments. But still not photosynthesis. It was only generating oxidant, not reducing carbon.

The sunlight wasn't the source of energy for the bacteria. It was just the spark that allowed the bacteria to exploit other sources of energy, such as the oxidation of hydrogen.

Well, it's getting late. I'll pick it up tomorrow, get into anoxygenic photosynthesis and banded iron formations, finally oxygenic photosynthesis which provided the oxygen that changed everything.

There was one weak
11-03-2022 12:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Hydrogen gas for example.

All a bacteria needed was an oxidant to take advantage of it.

Oxidants were scarce in those days.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
No oxidants had yet been generated by photosynthesis.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
The earth did provide a few. There was some nitrate here and there, some sulfate, some iron and manganese in oxidized state. But not much. A few localized niches for nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., where the earth provided oxidants.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
One very weak oxidant that was abundant was carbon dioxide.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
The first methanogenic bacteria evolved to couple hydrogen oxidation to carbon dioxide reduction. The product of their metabolism was methane gas.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
The earth had no ozone shield to protect from ultraviolet.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Manganese was particularly sensitive to photo oxidation by sunlight.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Where sunlight photooxidized manganese(II) to manganese(IV), that manganese(IV) could then be used by microorganisms as oxidant.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
After they used the manganese(IV) to oxidize (hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, iron, carbon, etc., they had manganese(II) leftover as a waste product.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Somehow, a bacteria had manganese(II) inside the cell that got photooxidized to manganese(IV). Somehow it evolved into recycling the manganese within the cell, reoxidizing it with sunlight over and over.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Somehow it evolved into an organic matrix structure to hold the manganese atom in place.

It wasn't photosynthesis. It was just intracellular photoxidation to generate an oxidant.

Somehow, that organic structure to hold the manganese atom expanded into a light harvesting apparatus. Able to use blue light rather than ultraviolet, and be competitive in zones of lower light intensity. Expanded further to even be able to use red light, making it competitive in even dimmer environments. But still not photosynthesis. It was only generating oxidant, not reducing carbon.

The sunlight wasn't the source of energy for the bacteria. It was just the spark that allowed the bacteria to exploit other sources of energy, such as the oxidation of hydrogen.

Well, it's getting late. I'll pick it up tomorrow, get into anoxygenic photosynthesis and banded iron formations, finally oxygenic photosynthesis which provided the oxygen that changed everything.

You are just making shit up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2022 12:41
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar
11-03-2022 13:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
duncan61 wrote:This is where the first oxygen came from,

So you were taught that Perth is the origin of the atmosphere? Interesting. Did you believe it?
11-03-2022 14:11
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Nice work.The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.When the sun shines they literally fart oxygen.This put oxygen in the atmosphere.They still exist in Shark bay as the shallow ocean has little movement and evaporates rapidly in the hot conditions that exist there nearly all year round.The hyper saline water did and still does not allow the snails and other lifeforms that developed later to consume the stromatolites that are still doing their thing.I have seen this in person.Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun
Edited on 11-03-2022 14:51
11-03-2022 17:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
duncan61 wrote:Nice work.

You piqued my interest when you wrote that Hamelin Pool Telegraph station is where the first oxygen came from. I was hoping you would embellish.

duncan61 wrote:The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.

Again, this is what I believe, ... and what you believe, but it is speculation about the past. Such beliefs should begin with the words "I believe that ... " Neither you nor I were around anywhere before the 1700s with any sort of audio/video equipment so we don't get to assert how things were in the distant past without sporting some form of time machine.

duncan61 wrote:Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun

I did notice the fun you were having and I certainly do not want to disrupt any of it. I will leave the CO2 matter to you. Have at it.
RE: oxygen that was already in the water?11-03-2022 21:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
duncan61 wrote:
I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It shouldn't be surprising that an organism could acquire oxygen from water as dissolved oxygen and expel it as oxygen gas.

But it this is where the "first" oxygen came from, how did it get in the water before somebody sucked it up and farted it out?
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean18312-05-2022 18:52
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1121-04-2022 16:30
CO2 ocean uptake30622-02-2021 04:08
The Atlantic Ocean Is Growing2530-01-2021 03:11
Historic ocean acidification6411-08-2020 02:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact