Remember me
▼ Content

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?



Page 2 of 2<12
08-06-2024 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
seal lover,
I looked up a gdp graph in the various countries and looked up a co2 production graph in the various counties. The graphs were almost identical. Developed countries were more efficient in co2 vs $'s. Take a look and tell me what you think.


I hate to keep disrespecting mark's thread topic.


"co2 vs $'s"

Without seeing the graphs I can only guess.

I'm wondering if for "co2" they are strictly measuring carbon dioxide emitted directly from fossil fuel combustion.

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


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
08-06-2024 23:42
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
is it possible you need a better education or maybe just more education?
Edited on 08-06-2024 23:48
09-06-2024 04:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
keepit wrote:
itn,
is it possible you need a better education or maybe just more education?




The inability to comprehend what everyone means when they say "fossil fuel" is particularly fascinating.

Is is possible they don't know that EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS what the term actually means?

Fossils don't NEED fuel. Therefore, the "term fossil" fuel is meaningless?

Why are they the only ones who can't figure it out?

After eight or nine years of consistent ignorance, I don't think that more or better education will help.
09-06-2024 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Robert Northup wrote: The inability to comprehend what everyone means when they say "fossil fuel" is particularly fascinating.

The inability to comprehend that fossils don't burn, and are not sold as fuel, is particularly fascinating.

Robert Northup wrote: Is is possible they don't know that EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS what the term actually means?

Is it possible that Robert is referring to hydrocarbons, but simply doesn't have the scientific acumen to correctly express what he is so desperately trying to say?

Does Robert presume to speak for everyone else? Why yes, he does! Is there even a single rational adult who would appoint Robert to speak for him?

I think not ... but I haven't completed my survey of everyone.

Robert Northup wrote: Why are they the only ones who can't figure it out?

Who are "they"? What do you imagine that you are saying by using the term "fossil fuels"? I can help you speak in proper English and express the terms and phrases you seek.

On the other hand, after eight or nine years of consistent ignorance, perhaps nothing will help.
09-06-2024 09:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
The inability to comprehend what everyone means when they say "fossil fuel" is particularly fascinating.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't combust.
Im a BM wrote:
Is is possible they don't know that EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS what the term actually means?

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't combust. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Fossils don't NEED fuel. Therefore, the "term fossil" fuel is meaningless?

Why are they the only ones who can't figure it out?

After eight or nine years of consistent ignorance, I don't think that more or better education will help.

Semantics 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
15-06-2024 18:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?



It is Saturday again, and I hope you will be here to see this.

I want to draw your attention to the thread "A better way to post on climate-debate.com"

You had expressed interest in something akin to a moderated sub forum.

I don't know if you heard back from Branner about it.

I am asking Branner to let me moderate a sub forum within this website.

I hope that by immediately deleting off topic insult posts, there might be a discussion more attractive for participants to continue with.

You would be able to have your own thread in a place that is insulated from the adverse impacts of not having a moderator.

I hope you haven't given up already on climate-debate.com

I hope that Branner notices our efforts to communicate with the administrator.
15-06-2024 19:14
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
sealover wrote:
...

But here's one you probably haven't heard yet.

If you "have to fight fire with fire", maybe we should "fight carbon with carbon".

For example, with the increasing glut of available methane, maybe we can use it as FEED instead of FUEL.

There are sulfate reducing bacteria that can oxidize methane using sulfate as oxidant. Instead of carbon dioxide emitted, the process generates carbonate ion or bicarbonate ion.

The same is true for IRON reducing bacteria that oxidize methane. They oxidize organic carbon using ferric iron(III) as oxidant, and generate bicarbonate and carbonate rather than carbon dioxide as the inorganic carbon product.

Okay, so we've got enough extra methane to use some of it to feed bacteria.

Using a coastal wetland (natural, constructed, or reconstructed), we could pump methane into the low oxygen sediment.

The methane would be oxidized by sulfate reducing bacteria and iron reducing bacteria. The bicarbonate and carbonate they produce would flow out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

This would help keep shell forming organisms in the sea alive, and would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oh, and as far a "feed" goes, at some point you have a large biomass of methane-fed bacteria available for harvest. This protein rich material would be an excellent addition to animal feed.

You say "fighting fire with fire", but perhaps we can also say, based on your idea, "saving nature with nature"?


What I'm not entirely understanding, is that in an earlier post you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed, that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards), but you don't seem to think that is an issue with "... bicarbonate and carbonate..." flowing "...out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge." There's also a difficulty in my understanding, in the sense that we are putting more carbon into the oceans (as bicarbonate and carbonate), which would seem to cause 'acidification', yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved, and I expect you have an explanation for the above. I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate). I stopped studying chemistry when I was sixteen, and haven't really looked much at chemistry since. I get the gist of what you are suggesting, although I am recalling bits and pieces of my chemistry education from years ago.

With all the wonderful things that nature provides (such as the bacteria you mention), I feel we will find a solution to the climate emergency.
15-06-2024 19:43
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
I'm glad you're back.

I only have a moment for a brief response, but you open up so many important topics that I will return to address more of them in more detail later.

But for starters, "you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed.."

For ocean acidification, uptake of bicarbonate by seaweed is a beneficial thing. If they took it up as CO2, they would not have to either take in a cation or exude an anion to maintain charge balance, and this is acid neutralizing.

Putting carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions into the sea does add carbon. But it neutralizes acid.

One form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, forms acid as carbonic acid.

The other two forms of inorganic carbon, carbonate ion and bicarbonate ion, neutralize acidity.

One way or another, organic carbon releases energy when it gets oxidized to inorganic carbon.

One pathway for carbon oxidation produces acidifying carbon dioxide.

Other pathways for carbon oxidation produce acid neutralizing bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

I'll write more later. Glad you're still here.




markjfernandes wrote:
sealover wrote:
...

But here's one you probably haven't heard yet.

If you "have to fight fire with fire", maybe we should "fight carbon with carbon".

For example, with the increasing glut of available methane, maybe we can use it as FEED instead of FUEL.

There are sulfate reducing bacteria that can oxidize methane using sulfate as oxidant. Instead of carbon dioxide emitted, the process generates carbonate ion or bicarbonate ion.

The same is true for IRON reducing bacteria that oxidize methane. They oxidize organic carbon using ferric iron(III) as oxidant, and generate bicarbonate and carbonate rather than carbon dioxide as the inorganic carbon product.

Okay, so we've got enough extra methane to use some of it to feed bacteria.

Using a coastal wetland (natural, constructed, or reconstructed), we could pump methane into the low oxygen sediment.

The methane would be oxidized by sulfate reducing bacteria and iron reducing bacteria. The bicarbonate and carbonate they produce would flow out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

This would help keep shell forming organisms in the sea alive, and would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oh, and as far a "feed" goes, at some point you have a large biomass of methane-fed bacteria available for harvest. This protein rich material would be an excellent addition to animal feed.

You say "fighting fire with fire", but perhaps we can also say, based on your idea, "saving nature with nature"?


What I'm not entirely understanding, is that in an earlier post you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed, that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards), but you don't seem to think that is an issue with "... bicarbonate and carbonate..." flowing "...out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge." There's also a difficulty in my understanding, in the sense that we are putting more carbon into the oceans (as bicarbonate and carbonate), which would seem to cause 'acidification', yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved, and I expect you have an explanation for the above. I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate). I stopped studying chemistry when I was sixteen, and haven't really looked much at chemistry since. I get the gist of what you are suggesting, although I am recalling bits and pieces of my chemistry education from years ago.

With all the wonderful things that nature provides (such as the bacteria you mention), I feel we will find a solution to the climate emergency.
15-06-2024 20:13
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
keepit wrote:
one thing that i don't hear discussed very much is the dollar cost (and therefore co2 production) of these proposals. Many of them produce more co2 than they save. Some ev cars are a good example. Economics should be considered as well as chemistry. Not that i'm not a proponent of chemistry but a dollar spent is several dollars worth of co2 produced.
....
seal lover,
I looked up a gdp graph in the various countries and looked up a co2 production graph in the various counties. The graphs were almost identical. Developed countries were more efficient in co2 vs $'s. Take a look and tell me what you think.

Yes, the environment is a multi-faceted issue: chemistry is just one facet, economics is another. I think that maybe you are saying something like that whilst we may analyse how to be more environmentally-friendly with a particular thing (such as a car), in a kind of 'divide-and-conquer' approach, looking at isolated things and not at the whole picture, that this approach is problematic because by making a saving in one thing, we often create an accidental, sometimes unpredicted expense/problem in another thing that falls outside our window of analysis. As a basic example, it is said that the UK has reduced its emissions a great deal, but attentive observers have said that actually, all we've done is to send the emissions abroad, so overall, there hasn't really been a net saving for the globe.

So I think perhaps you are suggesting that we should have more of a holistic approach, or maybe more of an approach that looks at the bigger picture, where you've suggested that the economy as a whole is important for such.

But I do think that looking at being 'greener' in things in a local and isolated way, does generally help. Even though the UK may be exporting many of their emissions, I think it still does help a bit. A 'greener' car technology, can be reused/repurposed to make things 'greener' in other things. A 'greener' chemical process can perhaps be used in other contexts outside the context for which it was developed. When people simply talk about being 'greener' (such as we are doing), this can influence passive observers. Sometimes this cross-fertilisation of ideas, and links, are not predicted, and so when we do our calculations we do not perceive them, but even though we perceive and predict them not, they still exist.

Coming back to your main point about the economics of these ideas, yes, I think it is worthwhile to look at things also on the macro level of the entire economy. From what you were saying, I was just thinking about whether nature would heal itself, if human beings no longer existed: interesting thought.

Like sealover, I don't think simply spending less would automatically reduce emissions. I think it has to do with how the money is spent. But reducing expenditure, where your expenditure is mostly emission generating, may be a good approach, perhaps good for most people (we do seem to be very wasteful in the developed world). We seem to be so focused on the economy and jobs, that we are causing far too much devastation to the environment. We probably have to come to terms with the fact that a right solution may be for people to suffer unemployment for a while, whilst relying on social security. We have to perceive this as being sometimes a moral solution. With our isolated divide-and-conquer approach in the West, we seem to find this something difficult to swallow. But even though there be such economic problems, I do believe that transitioning to a 'greener' economy doesn't mean that the 'end game' is that we have economic devastation. I believe a 'greener' economy is possible, is necessary, and is one where there doesn't need to be huge unemployment.

I haven't really addressed your statement about the emissions triggered through simple engagement with the economy. It seems to me to be complex. I buy something that is 'green', but the money is then used to pay the wages of someone with a very 'ungreen' outlook? Perhaps needs some thought....
15-06-2024 20:19
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
My son still isn't ready to go, so I've got another minute.

Okay, the problem of ocean "acidification" is because carbon is being added to the sea, in the form of excess carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide dissolved in water can form the weak acid, carbonic acid.

"Fighting carbon with carbon" could include adding carbon to the sea in acid neutralizing form.

Bicarbonate, HCO3-, neutralizes one acid proton (H+) to become carbonic acid, H2CO3

Carbonate, CO3(2-) is twice as acid neutralizing.

Nature produces bicarbonate and carbonate, added to the sea constantly in the form of submarine groundwater discharge from the land.

We can enhance that.

Or, at least we can stop DIMINISHING this natural acid neutralizing addition as a result of draining wetlands.

An intact wetland is a net exporter of carbonate and bicarbonate to the sea.

A drained wetland is a net exporter of sulfuric acid to the sea.

Through the same process that now makes north Alaskan rivers turn orange.


sealover wrote:
I'm glad you're back.

I only have a moment for a brief response, but you open up so many important topics that I will return to address more of them in more detail later.

But for starters, "you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed.."

For ocean acidification, uptake of bicarbonate by seaweed is a beneficial thing. If they took it up as CO2, they would not have to either take in a cation or exude an anion to maintain charge balance, and this is acid neutralizing.

Putting carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions into the sea does add carbon. But it neutralizes acid.

One form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, forms acid as carbonic acid.

The other two forms of inorganic carbon, carbonate ion and bicarbonate ion, neutralize acidity.

One way or another, organic carbon releases energy when it gets oxidized to inorganic carbon.

One pathway for carbon oxidation produces acidifying carbon dioxide.

Other pathways for carbon oxidation produce acid neutralizing bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

I'll write more later. Glad you're still here.




markjfernandes wrote:
sealover wrote:
...

But here's one you probably haven't heard yet.

If you "have to fight fire with fire", maybe we should "fight carbon with carbon".

For example, with the increasing glut of available methane, maybe we can use it as FEED instead of FUEL.

There are sulfate reducing bacteria that can oxidize methane using sulfate as oxidant. Instead of carbon dioxide emitted, the process generates carbonate ion or bicarbonate ion.

The same is true for IRON reducing bacteria that oxidize methane. They oxidize organic carbon using ferric iron(III) as oxidant, and generate bicarbonate and carbonate rather than carbon dioxide as the inorganic carbon product.

Okay, so we've got enough extra methane to use some of it to feed bacteria.

Using a coastal wetland (natural, constructed, or reconstructed), we could pump methane into the low oxygen sediment.

The methane would be oxidized by sulfate reducing bacteria and iron reducing bacteria. The bicarbonate and carbonate they produce would flow out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

This would help keep shell forming organisms in the sea alive, and would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oh, and as far a "feed" goes, at some point you have a large biomass of methane-fed bacteria available for harvest. This protein rich material would be an excellent addition to animal feed.

You say "fighting fire with fire", but perhaps we can also say, based on your idea, "saving nature with nature"?


What I'm not entirely understanding, is that in an earlier post you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed, that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards), but you don't seem to think that is an issue with "... bicarbonate and carbonate..." flowing "...out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge." There's also a difficulty in my understanding, in the sense that we are putting more carbon into the oceans (as bicarbonate and carbonate), which would seem to cause 'acidification', yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved, and I expect you have an explanation for the above. I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate). I stopped studying chemistry when I was sixteen, and haven't really looked much at chemistry since. I get the gist of what you are suggesting, although I am recalling bits and pieces of my chemistry education from years ago.

With all the wonderful things that nature provides (such as the bacteria you mention), I feel we will find a solution to the climate emergency.
15-06-2024 23:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
sealover wrote: Okay, the problem of ocean "acidification" is because carbon is being added to the sea, in the form of excess carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere.

Quick Question: Are you going to completely ignore/omit the ocean's release of CO2 to the atmosphere via evaporation, which increases the ocean's pH value? Are you going to pretend that CO2 only accumulates in the ocean with no chance of escape?

You are, aren't you?

sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide dissolved in water can form the weak acid, carbonic acid.

... and what happens when that water evaporates? Any guesses?

sealover wrote: Carbonate, CO3(2-) is twice as acid neutralizing.

Evaporation is 100% acid neutralizing.
16-06-2024 00:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Okay, the problem of ocean "acidification" is because carbon is being added to the sea, in the form of excess carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere.

Quick Question: Are you going to completely ignore/omit the ocean's release of CO2 to the atmosphere via evaporation, which increases the ocean's pH value? Are you going to pretend that CO2 only accumulates in the ocean with no chance of escape?

You are, aren't you?

sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide dissolved in water can form the weak acid, carbonic acid.

... and what happens when that water evaporates? Any guesses?

sealover wrote: Carbonate, CO3(2-) is twice as acid neutralizing.

Evaporation is 100% acid neutralizing.



Carbon dioxide floating in the atmosphere is absorbed into the sea.

Carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water is released to the atmosphere.

All the time, both processes occur. In one microsite a molecule of CO2 enters the sea while in another microsite a molecule of CO2 exits the sea.

The total flux is not the same in both directions. More carbon dioxide is leaving the atmosphere to sea than leaving the sea to the atmosphere.

The total amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water is 50 time the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, the concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water doesn't increase over geologic time because coral formation ultimately sequesters nearly all the excess inorganic carbon added to the sea from the atmosphere.


OFF TOPIC NOTE REGARDING POSTER BEING RESPONDED TO

IBdaMann - senior troll, spam artist, and serial doxer

IBdaMann is the senior troll at this website, with nine and a half years of trolling and 14625 posts. He is almost always first on the scene to respond if someone from the Church of Global Warming, as a gullible puppet of Marxist masters, attempts to preach their WACKY religion with a post suggesting there might be evidence of climate change.

IBdaMann is a spam artist. Not just spam. Actual art. Detailed graphics tailored to mock a specific site member as some kind of troll or another. So many different troll designs, and with tee shirts tailored to mock. Not always time consuming creation of original art. Sometimes just endless series of photos of otters, seals, alligators, snakes. Sometimes the spam is just a picture of a giant can of spam.

IBdaMann is a serial doxer. In the "Search keywords" box near the upper left, you can enter the keyword THIS (all capital letters) On the first page of results are a couple of post where the word THIS shows up in blue, as a link. They are links to Google maps, for two different site members alleged home address. And they are just the tip of the iceberg for the serial doxer who makes "debate" as personal as it gets.
16-06-2024 01:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide floating in the atmosphere is absorbed into the sea.

Technically, as long as CO2 is floating in the atmopshere, it can't be absorbed into the sea. Ask any scientist.

Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water is released to the atmosphere. All the time, both processes occur. In one microsite a molecule of CO2 enters the sea while in another microsite a molecule of CO2 exits the sea.

Kudos. It's refreshing to see a Climate-lemming acknowledge the big picture.

Im a BM wrote: The total flux is not the same in both directions.

The two "directions" are exactly equivalent, i.e. equilibrium, since the amount of precipitation (that serves as the carbonic acid) is a function of the amount of evaporation from the sea, which is a fixed quantity. You can't have more precipitation than there was evaporation, and all ocean evaporation eventually becomes precipitation.

Exactly equivalent. Equilibrium. Ocean water = fixed quantity.

Im a BM wrote: More carbon dioxide is leaving the atmosphere to sea than leaving the sea to the atmosphere.

I wait with bated breath for you to support this silly assertion.

Quick Question: why has the Navy Research Labs (NRL) not discerned any change in the ocean's pH over the last thirty years? Nobody has studied global sea water anywhere near the extent that the NRL has, employing naval vessels to access all of it. How were you able to arrive at your differing assessment?

Im a BM wrote: The total amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water is 50 time the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Are you making the rookie mistake of assuming that rain water somehow doesn't enter the ocean only at the surface, and that carbonic acid is somehow uniformly distributed throught the entire volume of the ocean instead of only at the surface whereby it quickly evaporates, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere?

Yeah, it's a rookie mistake.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann is the senior troll at this website,

Thank you! Sorry, Into the Night, but you were counting your chickens before they hatched. You're not the top dog like you thought you were. You were strutt'n your stuff all bulveristically an all, but you never stopped to look at the writing on the wall. I B Da Mann. U R Out. ... well, maybe you're in 2nd place ... but the top slot is mine! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

So, it is with great humility that I humbly accept this award. I wish to thank my supporters, who are too many to name, and the visitors to my library ... I couldn't have done it without you (wipes tear of his cheek). I love you all.

Im a BM wrote: ... with nine and a half years of trolling and 14625 posts. He is almost always first on the scene to respond if someone from the Church of Global Warming, as a gullible puppet of Marxist masters, attempts to preach their WACKY religion with a post suggesting there might be evidence of climate change.

I certainly cannot take issue with your accuracy.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann is a spam artist. Not just spam. Actual art. Detailed graphics tailored to mock a specific site member as some kind of troll or another.

I only mock the trolls as trolls.

Im a BM wrote: So many different troll designs, and with tee shirts tailored to mock.

Heh, I didn't think you'd notice.
16-06-2024 08:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
markjfernandes wrote:
You say "fighting fire with fire", but perhaps we can also say, based on your idea, "saving nature with nature"?


What I'm not entirely understanding, is that in an earlier post you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
markjfernandes wrote:
that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards),

Bicarbonate doesn't decompose, since it's not a chemical. Burning carbon produces carbon dioxide.
markjfernandes wrote:
but you don't seem to think that is an issue with "... bicarbonate and carbonate..." flowing "...out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge." There's also a difficulty in my understanding, in the sense that we are putting more carbon into the oceans (as bicarbonate and carbonate),
Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.
[quote]markjfernandes wrote:
which would seem to cause 'acidification',

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Carbon is not an acid.
markjfernandes wrote:
yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

No limit of 'capacity'. Go have a soda.
markjfernandes wrote:
However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved,

You are not discussing science. Neither is Robert.
markjfernandes wrote:
and I expect you have an explanation for the above.

He has religious one, filled with buzzwords.
markjfernandes wrote:
I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate).

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
markjfernandes wrote:
I stopped studying chemistry when I was sixteen, and haven't really looked much at chemistry since. I get the gist of what you are suggesting, although I am recalling bits and pieces of my chemistry education from years ago.

You obviously have none.
markjfernandes wrote:
With all the wonderful things that nature provides (such as the bacteria you mention), I feel we will find a solution to the climate emergency.

Climate is not an emergency. Redefinition 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
16-06-2024 09:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
sealover wrote:
I'm glad you're back.

I only have a moment for a brief response, but you open up so many important topics that I will return to address more of them in more detail later.

But for starters, "you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed.."

For ocean acidification, uptake of bicarbonate by seaweed is a beneficial thing. If they took it up as CO2, they would not have to either take in a cation or exude an anion to maintain charge balance, and this is acid neutralizing.

You can't acidify an alkaline. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Putting carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions into the sea does add carbon.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
But it neutralizes acid.

You can't neutralize an acid with buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
One form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, forms acid as carbonic acid.

Carbon is not carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid.
sealover wrote:
The other two forms of inorganic carbon, carbonate ion and bicarbonate ion, neutralize acidity.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. You can't neutralize an acid with buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
One way or another, organic carbon releases energy when it gets oxidized to inorganic carbon.

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
One pathway for carbon oxidation produces acidifying carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
sealover wrote:
Other pathways for carbon oxidation produce acid neutralizing bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate 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
16-06-2024 09:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
markjfernandes wrote:
Yes, the environment is a multi-faceted issue:

Buzzword fallacy. And now for some more preaching from the Church of Green:
markjfernandes wrote:
chemistry is just one facet,

Chemistry is not a color.
markjfernandes wrote:
economics is another.

Economics is not a color.
markjfernandes wrote:
I think that maybe you are saying something like that whilst we may analyse how to be more environmentally-friendly with a particular thing (such as a car),

Define 'environmentally friendly'.
markjfernandes wrote:
in a kind of 'divide-and-conquer' approach, looking at isolated things and not at the whole picture, that this approach is problematic because by making a saving in one thing, we often create an accidental, sometimes unpredicted expense/problem in another thing that falls outside our window of analysis. As a basic example, it is said that the UK has reduced its emissions a great deal, but attentive observers have said that actually, all we've done is to send the emissions abroad, so overall, there hasn't really been a net saving for the globe.

Emissions of what? Carbon dioxide? Why are you afraid of carbon dioxide? This naturally occurring gas is absolutely essential for life on Earth.
markjfernandes wrote:
So I think perhaps you are suggesting that we should have more of a holistic approach, or maybe more of an approach that looks at the bigger picture, where you've suggested that the economy as a whole is important for such.

The first hint: Socialism. This is where you demonstrate that the Church of Green stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
markjfernandes wrote:
But I do think that looking at being 'greener' in things in a local and isolated way, does generally help.

Nothing to 'help'.
markjfernandes wrote:
Even though the UK may be exporting many of their emissions,

Do you sell it in bags or cans?
markjfernandes wrote:
I think it still does help a bit.

Help what? You haven't defined 'the problem'.
markjfernandes wrote:
A 'greener' car technology,

You like green cars? Mine happens to be black. My truck is dark brown. Only my tractor is green.
markjfernandes wrote:
can be reused/repurposed to make things 'greener' in other things.

Did you know that cars are the most recycled items around? Obama didn't, he caused a huge waste of that resource with his 'junker buyout' program (which collapsed due to lack of funding).
markjfernandes wrote:
A 'greener' chemical process

WTF is that???!?
markjfernandes wrote:
can perhaps be used in other contexts outside the context for which it was developed.

Void argument fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
When people simply talk about being 'greener' (such as we are doing), this can influence passive observers.

Void argument fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
Sometimes this cross-fertilisation of ideas, and links, are not predicted, and so when we do our calculations we do not perceive them, but even though we perceive and predict them not, they still exist.

You are not presenting any ideas.
markjfernandes wrote:
Coming back to your main point about the economics of these ideas, yes, I think it is worthwhile to look at things also on the macro level of the entire economy. From what you were saying, I was just thinking about whether nature would heal itself, if human beings no longer existed: interesting thought.

Heal itself from what? Are you going to argue for decreasing the population now? You first.
markjfernandes wrote:
Like sealover, I don't think simply spending less would automatically reduce emissions.

Emissions of what? Why do you want to reduce them? It sounds like you are preaching scripture from the Church of Global Warming. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
markjfernandes wrote:
I think it has to do with how the money is spent. But reducing expenditure, where your expenditure is mostly emission generating, may be a good approach,

A good approach to what? Destroying an economy?
markjfernandes wrote:
perhaps good for most people (we do seem to be very wasteful in the developed world).

See the earlier reference to Obama and the waste he caused.
markjfernandes wrote:
We seem to be so focused on the economy and jobs, that we are causing far too much devastation to the environment.

What 'devastation to the environment'??
markjfernandes wrote:
We probably have to come to terms with the fact that a right solution may be for people to suffer unemployment for a while, whilst relying on social security.

There it is. All hanging out pink and naked. You are arguing for communism. Sorry, dude. Communism doesn't work. It's a form of socialism, and like all socialism, is based on theft.
markjfernandes wrote:
We have to perceive this as being sometimes a moral solution.

Theft is not a moral solution. You haven't yet described 'The Problem'.


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
18-06-2024 20:35
sealover
★★★★☆
(1681)
Perhaps this description will make it more clear.

The sea receives inputs of acidifying inorganic carbon as carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere create a steeper gradient to drive CO2 into sea water. More CO2 is going into the sea every day now than in the past.

The sea receives inputs of acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion from the land, primarily via submarine groundwater discharge. Those inputs are LESS than before, as human activity has altered the hydrology of wetlands. Exposure of buried pyrite to oxidation now generates sulfuric acid. Drained wetlands are net exporters of sulfuric acid, rather than acid neutralizing carbonate and bicarbonate.

So, the sea STILL gets inputs of inorganic carbon from the air and from the land. But the balance has shifted regarding what FORM of inorganic carbon dominates the mix.

Sea water does not simply keep increasing concentration of inorganic carbon over time, even though more and more keeps coming in. Formation of solid calcium carbonate, primarily by shell forming organisms, removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water. If the less common pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as dissolved carbon dioxide. This removes CO2 from sea water. If the dominate pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as bicarbonate ion. If charge balance is maintained by simultaneously taking in an acid proton (H+), this actually raises pH, despite removing an acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion.

Human activity has shifted the balance of which forms of inorganic carbon enter the sea in the greatest amounts.

Commercial shellfish farmers must now purchase carbonate to add to the sea water, so that juvenile shell formation can still continue in a healthy manner.

If we were to attempt to do the same thing for the whole sea, it would take literally FOUR TIMES the average annual production of cement for ALL the world's construction needs. And we would still be stuck with the fact that baking limestone into quick lime generates carbon dioxide that goes to the atmosphere.

We could change the way we manage wetlands to greatly enhance their natural production of alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate in submarine groundwater discharge.

Or at least we could stop MISmanaging wetlands in a manner that makes them net exporters of sulfuric acid rather than acid neutralizing capacity.

"There is no such thing as alkalinity", according to our most prolific troll.

You can place you faith in his omniscience and scientific infallibility.

Or you could look up the term "alkalinity" and learn that it is not only REAL, it is very important.

Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity.

Ocean "acidification" is a misnomer, as there is no risk that the sea will actually become acidic (pH <7). What it is is the depletion of alkalinity. There has only been a TINY decrease in pH (about 0.1-0.2 pH units), and it is still well above 7. Nearly a third of the sea's alkalinity has been lost in the last half century.

markjfernandes wrote:
sealover wrote:
...

But here's one you probably haven't heard yet.

If you "have to fight fire with fire", maybe we should "fight carbon with carbon".

For example, with the increasing glut of available methane, maybe we can use it as FEED instead of FUEL.

There are sulfate reducing bacteria that can oxidize methane using sulfate as oxidant. Instead of carbon dioxide emitted, the process generates carbonate ion or bicarbonate ion.

The same is true for IRON reducing bacteria that oxidize methane. They oxidize organic carbon using ferric iron(III) as oxidant, and generate bicarbonate and carbonate rather than carbon dioxide as the inorganic carbon product.

Okay, so we've got enough extra methane to use some of it to feed bacteria.

Using a coastal wetland (natural, constructed, or reconstructed), we could pump methane into the low oxygen sediment.

The methane would be oxidized by sulfate reducing bacteria and iron reducing bacteria. The bicarbonate and carbonate they produce would flow out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

This would help keep shell forming organisms in the sea alive, and would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oh, and as far a "feed" goes, at some point you have a large biomass of methane-fed bacteria available for harvest. This protein rich material would be an excellent addition to animal feed.

You say "fighting fire with fire", but perhaps we can also say, based on your idea, "saving nature with nature"?


What I'm not entirely understanding, is that in an earlier post you warned about bicarbonate being consumed by seaweed, that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards), but you don't seem to think that is an issue with "... bicarbonate and carbonate..." flowing "...out to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge." There's also a difficulty in my understanding, in the sense that we are putting more carbon into the oceans (as bicarbonate and carbonate), which would seem to cause 'acidification', yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved, and I expect you have an explanation for the above. I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate). I stopped studying chemistry when I was sixteen, and haven't really looked much at chemistry since. I get the gist of what you are suggesting, although I am recalling bits and pieces of my chemistry education from years ago.

With all the wonderful things that nature provides (such as the bacteria you mention), I feel we will find a solution to the climate emergency.
18-06-2024 21:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Robert's recent post above is precisely why he needs a subforum he can censor and build as a shrine to his WACKY religion. He can't just post particular personally precious prosthelytizing ... and have it be mocked and ridiculed like any other scientifically illiterate crap on the bottom of GasGuzzler's shoe! That would be insufferable.

@Branner, give Robert his Snowflake Safe Zone ASAP!

sealover wrote: Perhaps this description will make it more clear.

You know it won't.

sealover wrote: The sea receives inputs of acidifying inorganic carbon as carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The sea RECEIVES INPUTS? You clearly know what you are talking about.

I bet you didn't think I was going to point out that a chemist wouldn't have totally forgotten about the exactly canceling effect EVAPORATION has on the fixed quantity of terrestrial water.

sealover wrote: Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere create a steeper gradient to drive CO2 into sea water.

Nope. Neither higher nor lower concentrations of atmospheric CO2 do anything to stem the ocean's EVAPORATION.

sealover wrote: More CO2 is going into the sea every day now than in the past.

The reason your post stinks is because you pulled it fresh out of your ass. Neither you nor anyone else knows how much atmospheric CO2 there is right now or how much there has ever been. You think you are omniscient. You're a moron.

Please get your censorship subforum soon and move all your science-denial crap to it and off the threads used by rational adults.

sealover wrote: The sea receives inputs of acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion from the land, primarily via submarine groundwater discharge.

Nope. The main source of bicarbonate and carbonate is from the erosion of rocks and minerals. How do you not know this?

sealover wrote: Those inputs are LESS than before, as human activity has altered the hydrology of wetlands.

Those "inputs" are exactly the same as before. Erosion hasn't changed. The ocean remains at a pH of roughly 8.3 (non-uniform).

sealover wrote: So, the sea STILL gets inputs of inorganic carbon from the air and from the land. But the balance has shifted regarding what FORM of inorganic carbon dominates the mix.

There is no "balance" (whatever that is suppose to mean) ... only the equilibrium of the water cycle which still involves the same rate of evaporation.

sealover wrote: Sea water does not simply keep increasing concentration of inorganic carbon over time,

... because there simply is no such thing as "inorganic carbon."

I hope you get your kids' table today. I hope, I hope, I hope .... just get your shit out of the center of the aisle and out of everyone's way.

Hey, when you have your own censorship subforum, will you spam it? You'll be able to, you know. You'll be able to practice new techniques and get really, really good. Carpe diem!

sealover wrote: Formation of solid calcium carbonate, primarily by shell forming organisms, removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

For how long do you believe there have been shell-forming organisms in the ocean? Do you have any sense of magnitude? Please compare the quantity of shell-forming organisms and their size to the amount of water in the ocean plus the amount of erosion that is carried out to sea. Let that sink in (no pun intended).

sealover wrote: Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

There is no such thing as inorganic carbon; as such, EVAPORATION removes the CO2 from the ocean.

sealover wrote: Human activity has shifted the balance of which forms of inorganic carbon enter the sea in the greatest amounts.

There is no "balance." There is no "(in)organic carbon." You haven't mentioned anything that has any discernible impact.

Please get your subforum; it's all I ask.
18-06-2024 23:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
sealover wrote:
Perhaps this description will make it more clear.

And now for another trip of wacky buzzwords by Robert.
sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acidifying inorganic carbon

Carbon is not an acid.
sealover wrote:
as carbon dioxide

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not an acid either.
sealover wrote:
from the atmosphere. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere create a steeper gradient to drive CO2 into sea water. More CO2 is going into the sea every day now than in the past.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.
sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion from the land,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You can't neutralize an acid with a non-entity.
sealover wrote:
primarily via submarine groundwater discharge.

Water generally flow downhill (with very few exceptions).
sealover wrote:
Those inputs are LESS than before, as human activity has altered the hydrology of wetlands.

A wetland isn't the ocean. Redefinition fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Exposure of buried pyrite to oxidation now generates sulfuric acid.

Pyrite (also called 'fools gold') is a stable substance.
sealover wrote:
Drained wetlands are net exporters of sulfuric acid,

A drained wetland is not a wetland. Neither a wet or dry land sells or exports sulfuric acid to anyone.
sealover wrote:
rather than acid neutralizing carbonate and bicarbonate.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
So, the sea STILL gets inputs of inorganic carbon from the air and from the land.

Still trying to deny equilibrium, eh?
sealover wrote:
But the balance has shifted regarding what FORM of inorganic carbon dominates the mix.

Carbon is carbon. Are you seriously suggesting that more diamonds are entering the sea than before? Must be clumsy woman losing their rings.
sealover wrote:
Sea water does not simply keep increasing concentration of inorganic carbon over time, even though more and more keeps coming in. Formation of solid calcium carbonate, primarily by shell forming organisms, removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

Calcium carbonate is not carbon.
sealover wrote:
Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

Photosynthesis does not remove any carbon.
sealover wrote:
If the less common pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as dissolved carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
This removes CO2 from sea water. If the dominate pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as bicarbonate ion.

Dissolving CO2 in water does not remove it. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
If charge balance is maintained by simultaneously taking in an acid proton (H+), this actually raises pH, despite removing an acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Acid is not a proton.
sealover wrote:
Human activity has shifted the balance of which forms of inorganic carbon enter the sea in the greatest amounts.

Still going about all those diamonds, eh?
sealover wrote:
Commercial shellfish farmers must now purchase carbonate

Carbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to purchase something that doesn't exist.
sealover wrote:
to add to the sea water, so that juvenile shell formation can still continue in a healthy manner.

Shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells.
sealover wrote:
If we were to attempt to do the same thing for the whole sea, it would take literally FOUR TIMES the average annual production of cement for ALL the world's construction needs.

Cement is not carbonate. Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
And we would still be stuck with the fact that baking limestone into quick lime generates carbon dioxide that goes to the atmosphere.

So?
sealover wrote:
We could change the way we manage wetlands to greatly enhance their natural production of alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate in submarine groundwater discharge.

There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Water generally flows downhill.
sealover wrote:
Or at least we could stop MISmanaging wetlands in a manner that makes them net exporters of sulfuric acid rather than acid neutralizing capacity.

There is no 'acid neutralizing capacity'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as alkalinity", according to our most prolific troll.

There isn't, and you are saying there is, troll.
sealover wrote:
You can place you faith in his omniscience and scientific infallibility.

You discard science. You also try to speak for everyone and for the dead.
sealover wrote:
Or you could look up the term "alkalinity" and learn that it is not only REAL, it is very important.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
Ocean "acidification" is a misnomer, as there is no risk that the sea will actually become acidic (pH <7).

WRONG. You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
What it is is the depletion of alkalinity.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
There has only been a TINY decrease in pH (about 0.1-0.2 pH units),

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
and it is still well above 7.

Most ocean water is above 7. Not all of it, however.
sealover wrote:
Nearly a third of the sea's alkalinity has been lost in the last half century.

Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-06-2024 18:20
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
"There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night

This was the last line of the post below.

Why bother discussing chemistry with someone who makes such laughably absurd assertions?

There is no such thing as alkalinity. No such thing. Wish it away.

Claiming that alkalinity isn't real kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about alkalinity.

Kind of like claiming that climate change isn't real kind of disqualifies someone from being taken seriously in a discussion about climate change.

There is no such thing as climate change. No such thing. Wish it away.

Proving that alkalinity IS real isn't even slightly controversial.

There is NO textbook or scientific paper ANYWHERE that denies the reality of alkalinity as an actual chemical parameter of great significance.

So, my advice to markjfernandez, if he comes back again tomorrow...

Be aware of the obstacles to rational discussion of science on this website.

But it could still happen one of these days.


I can't resist a final note. Also, from the post below:

"Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You cannot neutralize an acid with a non-entity." - Into the Night


Chemists don't always add the word "ion" when they refer to bicarbonate or carbonate is solution.

A box of baking soda (a bicarbonate) is often kept on hand to neutralize acid spills in labs and other places where acid spills might occur.

The Royal Decree that this is not possible will not have any impact on reality.



Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Perhaps this description will make it more clear.

And now for another trip of wacky buzzwords by Robert.
sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acidifying inorganic carbon

Carbon is not an acid.
sealover wrote:
as carbon dioxide

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not an acid either.
sealover wrote:
from the atmosphere. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere create a steeper gradient to drive CO2 into sea water. More CO2 is going into the sea every day now than in the past.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.
sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion from the land,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You can't neutralize an acid with a non-entity.
sealover wrote:
primarily via submarine groundwater discharge.

Water generally flow downhill (with very few exceptions).
sealover wrote:
Those inputs are LESS than before, as human activity has altered the hydrology of wetlands.

A wetland isn't the ocean. Redefinition fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Exposure of buried pyrite to oxidation now generates sulfuric acid.

Pyrite (also called 'fools gold') is a stable substance.
sealover wrote:
Drained wetlands are net exporters of sulfuric acid,

A drained wetland is not a wetland. Neither a wet or dry land sells or exports sulfuric acid to anyone.
sealover wrote:
rather than acid neutralizing carbonate and bicarbonate.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
So, the sea STILL gets inputs of inorganic carbon from the air and from the land.

Still trying to deny equilibrium, eh?
sealover wrote:
But the balance has shifted regarding what FORM of inorganic carbon dominates the mix.

Carbon is carbon. Are you seriously suggesting that more diamonds are entering the sea than before? Must be clumsy woman losing their rings.
sealover wrote:
Sea water does not simply keep increasing concentration of inorganic carbon over time, even though more and more keeps coming in. Formation of solid calcium carbonate, primarily by shell forming organisms, removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

Calcium carbonate is not carbon.
sealover wrote:
Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

Photosynthesis does not remove any carbon.
sealover wrote:
If the less common pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as dissolved carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
This removes CO2 from sea water. If the dominate pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as bicarbonate ion.

Dissolving CO2 in water does not remove it. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
If charge balance is maintained by simultaneously taking in an acid proton (H+), this actually raises pH, despite removing an acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Acid is not a proton.
sealover wrote:
Human activity has shifted the balance of which forms of inorganic carbon enter the sea in the greatest amounts.

Still going about all those diamonds, eh?
sealover wrote:
Commercial shellfish farmers must now purchase carbonate

Carbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to purchase something that doesn't exist.
sealover wrote:
to add to the sea water, so that juvenile shell formation can still continue in a healthy manner.

Shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells.
sealover wrote:
If we were to attempt to do the same thing for the whole sea, it would take literally FOUR TIMES the average annual production of cement for ALL the world's construction needs.

Cement is not carbonate. Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
And we would still be stuck with the fact that baking limestone into quick lime generates carbon dioxide that goes to the atmosphere.

So?
sealover wrote:
We could change the way we manage wetlands to greatly enhance their natural production of alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate in submarine groundwater discharge.

There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Water generally flows downhill.
sealover wrote:
Or at least we could stop MISmanaging wetlands in a manner that makes them net exporters of sulfuric acid rather than acid neutralizing capacity.

There is no 'acid neutralizing capacity'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
"There is no such thing as alkalinity", according to our most prolific troll.

There isn't, and you are saying there is, troll.
sealover wrote:
You can place you faith in his omniscience and scientific infallibility.

You discard science. You also try to speak for everyone and for the dead.
sealover wrote:
Or you could look up the term "alkalinity" and learn that it is not only REAL, it is very important.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
Ocean "acidification" is a misnomer, as there is no risk that the sea will actually become acidic (pH <7).

WRONG. You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
What it is is the depletion of alkalinity.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
There has only been a TINY decrease in pH (about 0.1-0.2 pH units),

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
and it is still well above 7.

Most ocean water is above 7. Not all of it, however.
sealover wrote:
Nearly a third of the sea's alkalinity has been lost in the last half century.

Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'.
21-06-2024 21:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night

This was the last line of the post below. Why bother discussing chemistry with someone who makes such laughably absurd assertions?

The world of science and engineering speaks the way Into the Night does. If I were to ask you to fill a jug with alkalinity, you'd have to admit that there is no such thing as "alkalinity," but that it is a property of certain solutions.

The world of object-oriented design and model-based systems engineering immediately flags "alkalinity" as base classifier and not as any quantity kind. If you don't readily understand any of that, it's OK; it just means that there is no such thing as alkalinity, but that other things that do exist can have the property of alkalinity.

You should probably apologize to Into the Night; he was just being his usual helpful self and you were mean to him for it.

Im a BM wrote: Claiming that alkalinity isn't real kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about alkalinity.

Not knowing the difference between a property and a substance kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about properties, e.g. alkalinity.

Kind of like claiming that climate change is real kind of disqualifies someone from being taken seriously in a discussion about science.

Proving that alkalinity ISN'T real isn't even slightly controversial. Alkalinity is an abstract class that requires specialization to define any alkaline substance.

There is NO textbook or scientific paper ANYWHERE that denies the reality of alkalinity being a property, an actual chemical parameter, and not any sort of substance whatsoever.

So, my advice to markjfernandez, if he comes back again tomorrow...

Be aware of the obstacles to rational discussion of science on this website.

I can't resist a final note. Also, from the post below:

Im a BM wrote: A box of baking soda (a bicarbonate) is often kept on hand to neutralize acid spills in labs and other places where acid spills might occur.

Your use of the article "a", i.e. "a bicarbonate", shows that you are aware that "bicarbonate" is a category, not a chemical.

Baking soda is a chemical; there is no chemical "bicarbonate" however, because it is a category.


By the way, I have a favor to ask. Would you clearly state for everyone's edification, that I am the top troll on this board? You have been somewhat careless in your wording of late and it has led to some growing confusion. I am hoping you could clear this up once and for all.

Your assistance is appreciated.
21-06-2024 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night

This was the last line of the post below. Why bother discussing chemistry with someone who makes such laughably absurd assertions?

The world of science and engineering speaks the way Into the Night does. If I were to ask you to fill a jug with alkalinity, you'd have to admit that there is no such thing as "alkalinity," but that it is a property of certain solutions.

The world of object-oriented design and model-based systems engineering immediately flags "alkalinity" as base classifier and not as any quantity kind. If you don't readily understand any of that, it's OK; it just means that there is no such thing as alkalinity, but that other things that do exist can have the property of alkalinity.

You should probably apologize to Into the Night; he was just being his usual helpful self and you were mean to him for it.

Im a BM wrote: Claiming that alkalinity isn't real kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about alkalinity.

Not knowing the difference between a property and a substance kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about properties, e.g. alkalinity.

Kind of like claiming that climate change is real kind of disqualifies someone from being taken seriously in a discussion about science.

Proving that alkalinity ISN'T real isn't even slightly controversial. Alkalinity is an abstract class that requires specialization to define any alkaline substance.

There is NO textbook or scientific paper ANYWHERE that denies the reality of alkalinity being a property, an actual chemical parameter, and not any sort of substance whatsoever.

So, my advice to markjfernandez, if he comes back again tomorrow...

Be aware of the obstacles to rational discussion of science on this website.

I can't resist a final note. Also, from the post below:

Im a BM wrote: A box of baking soda (a bicarbonate) is often kept on hand to neutralize acid spills in labs and other places where acid spills might occur.

Your use of the article "a", i.e. "a bicarbonate", shows that you are aware that "bicarbonate" is a category, not a chemical.

Baking soda is a chemical; there is no chemical "bicarbonate" however, because it is a category.


By the way, I have a favor to ask. Would you clearly state for everyone's edification, that I am the top troll on this board? You have been somewhat careless in your wording of late and it has led to some growing confusion. I am hoping you could clear this up once and for all.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Well put.

Sodium bicarbonate IS a chemical (NaHCO3). When combined with hydrochloric acid (HCl, in solution), the result is salt water (NaCl, in solution) and carbon dioxide. This is an exothermic reaction.

Incidentally, this reaction is useful for getting stubborn stains out of a toilet bowl. It's even safe for septic systems and all plumbing materials.

Simply dilute muriatic acid into your toilet bowl and let the acid eat away the stain (open the window to the bathroom if you have one!), then neutralize it with the baking soda. The resulting gallon or so of salt water is harmless to pipes and septic systems.


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
22-06-2024 03:01
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
"There is no such thing as climate change".

Climate change is very real and it is occurring in a way that makes the news headlines at least a few times a week.

But, technically, climate change is not a "thing", if one's mentality is so rigid that they cannot comprehend that "thing" isn't always physical substance. So, there is no such "thing" as climate or change.

The same logic makes it even MORE clear that there is no such "thing" as thermodynamics. Or science. Or history

Is nitrogen a chemical? Is nitrogen an element? It cannot be both, right?

Language means what people understand it to mean.

It is sad that not everybody understands what it means.

But that shouldn't prevent everyone else from using the language that NEARLY everyone else understands.

So, markjfernandez, you can see what this website is all about.

It is tempting to mock the incredible ignorance displayed.

But ANY kind of attention is a reward that is not deserved.

Honestly, I was hoping you and I could teach by example.

We could model a way to have a rational discussion about the website topic.

Eventually, others might join.


Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night

This was the last line of the post below. Why bother discussing chemistry with someone who makes such laughably absurd assertions?

The world of science and engineering speaks the way Into the Night does. If I were to ask you to fill a jug with alkalinity, you'd have to admit that there is no such thing as "alkalinity," but that it is a property of certain solutions.

The world of object-oriented design and model-based systems engineering immediately flags "alkalinity" as base classifier and not as any quantity kind. If you don't readily understand any of that, it's OK; it just means that there is no such thing as alkalinity, but that other things that do exist can have the property of alkalinity.

You should probably apologize to Into the Night; he was just being his usual helpful self and you were mean to him for it.

Im a BM wrote: Claiming that alkalinity isn't real kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about alkalinity.

Not knowing the difference between a property and a substance kind of disqualifies one from being taken seriously in a discussion about properties, e.g. alkalinity.

Kind of like claiming that climate change is real kind of disqualifies someone from being taken seriously in a discussion about science.

Proving that alkalinity ISN'T real isn't even slightly controversial. Alkalinity is an abstract class that requires specialization to define any alkaline substance.

There is NO textbook or scientific paper ANYWHERE that denies the reality of alkalinity being a property, an actual chemical parameter, and not any sort of substance whatsoever.

So, my advice to markjfernandez, if he comes back again tomorrow...

Be aware of the obstacles to rational discussion of science on this website.

I can't resist a final note. Also, from the post below:

Im a BM wrote: A box of baking soda (a bicarbonate) is often kept on hand to neutralize acid spills in labs and other places where acid spills might occur.

Your use of the article "a", i.e. "a bicarbonate", shows that you are aware that "bicarbonate" is a category, not a chemical.

Baking soda is a chemical; there is no chemical "bicarbonate" however, because it is a category.


By the way, I have a favor to ask. Would you clearly state for everyone's edification, that I am the top troll on this board? You have been somewhat careless in your wording of late and it has led to some growing confusion. I am hoping you could clear this up once and for all.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Well put.

Sodium bicarbonate IS a chemical (NaHCO3). When combined with hydrochloric acid (HCl, in solution), the result is salt water (NaCl, in solution) and carbon dioxide. This is an exothermic reaction.

Incidentally, this reaction is useful for getting stubborn stains out of a toilet bowl. It's even safe for septic systems and all plumbing materials.

Simply dilute muriatic acid into your toilet bowl and let the acid eat away the stain (open the window to the bathroom if you have one!), then neutralize it with the baking soda. The resulting gallon or so of salt water is harmless to pipes and septic systems.
22-06-2024 07:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Im a BM wrote: Climate change is very real and it is occurring in a way that makes the news headlines at least a few times a week.

Headlines are used to grab the attention of uneducated impulse buyers. Have you ever seen a tabloid? Publishers want to make money and they find that money from gullible people is just as good as anybody else's money, but it flows in much more easily. A fool and his money are soon parted. Headlines are tailored to such.






Im a BM wrote: Is nitrogen a chemical?

Yes, nitrogen is a chemical, but "noble gas" is not; it is a category, an abstract class.

You're not getting any of this, are you?

Im a BM wrote: Language means what people understand it to mean.

That's no excuse for claiming to be a chemist and then not knowing what constitutes a chemical. Hint: a category of chemicals is not itself a chemical.

You can't claim to be a scientist and not understand thermodynamics.

So, markjfernandez, you can see what Robert Northup is all about. It is tempting to mock the incredible ignorance displayed. But ANY kind of attention is a counterproductive reward for spamming.

I hold out hope that you and I can teach by example. We could have a rational discussion about the website topic. Eventually, Robert might join and contribute some science and respond to questions asked of him.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is001-09-2022 13:50
Pizza Hut facing boycott calls after promoting 'drag kids' book for kindergartners1508-06-2022 13:29
Reasons Why Promoting Using NCOV COVID Vaccine Is Going Against The Unseen Divine Law This Timeline025-07-2021 16:03
Bernie To Use Executive Fiat To Declare Climate Emergency, Ban Fracking, More501-02-2020 01:04
Global CO2 Emergency Plan (GCEP) needed asap726-01-2020 23:47
▲ 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