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

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.

keepit wrote:
itn,
is it possible you need a better education or maybe just more education?

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:
The inability to comprehend what everyone means when they say "fossil fuel" is particularly fascinating.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide floating in the atmosphere is absorbed into the sea.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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,

markjfernandes wrote:
that then decomposes in aerobic conditions to turn the carbon into carbon dioxide (which is something of a step backwards),

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',

markjfernandes wrote:
yet you say it "...would increase the capacity of the ocean to continue absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere".

markjfernandes wrote:
However, of course, I don't know all of the science involved,

markjfernandes wrote:
and I expect you have an explanation for the above.

markjfernandes wrote:
I think it perhaps has to do with the carbonate (as opposed to the bicarbonate).

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.

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.

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.

sealover wrote:
Putting carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions into the sea does add carbon.

sealover wrote:
But it neutralizes acid.

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
One pathway for carbon oxidation produces acidifying carbon dioxide.

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

markjfernandes wrote:
Yes, the environment is a multi-faceted issue:

markjfernandes wrote:
chemistry is just one facet,

markjfernandes wrote:
economics is another.

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),

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.

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.

markjfernandes wrote:
But I do think that looking at being 'greener' in things in a local and isolated way, does generally help.

markjfernandes wrote:
Even though the UK may be exporting many of their emissions,

markjfernandes wrote:
I think it still does help a bit.

markjfernandes wrote:
A 'greener' car technology,

markjfernandes wrote:
can be reused/repurposed to make things 'greener' in other things.

markjfernandes wrote:
A 'greener' chemical process

markjfernandes wrote:
can perhaps be used in other contexts outside the context for which it was developed.

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

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.

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.

markjfernandes wrote:
Like sealover, I don't think simply spending less would automatically reduce emissions.

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,

markjfernandes wrote:
perhaps good for most people (we do seem to be very wasteful in the developed world).

markjfernandes wrote:
We seem to be so focused on the economy and jobs, that we are causing far too much 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.

markjfernandes wrote:
We have to perceive this as being sometimes a moral solution.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

sealover wrote: Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

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

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

sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acidifying inorganic carbon

sealover wrote:
as carbon dioxide

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.

sealover wrote:
The sea receives inputs of acid neutralizing bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion from the land,

sealover wrote:
primarily via submarine groundwater discharge.

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

sealover wrote:
Exposure of buried pyrite to oxidation now generates sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
Drained wetlands are net exporters of sulfuric acid,

sealover wrote:
rather than acid neutralizing carbonate and bicarbonate.

sealover wrote:
So, the sea STILL gets inputs of inorganic carbon from the air and from the land.

sealover wrote:
But the balance has shifted regarding what FORM of inorganic carbon dominates the mix.

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.

sealover wrote:
Photosynthesis removes inorganic carbon from sea water.

sealover wrote:
If the less common pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as dissolved carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
This removes CO2 from sea water. If the dominate pathway is used, inorganic carbon is taken up as bicarbonate ion.

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.

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

sealover wrote:
Commercial shellfish farmers must now purchase carbonate

sealover wrote:
to add to the sea water, so that juvenile shell formation can still continue in a healthy manner.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity.

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

sealover wrote:
What it is is the depletion of alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
There has only been a TINY decrease in pH (about 0.1-0.2 pH units),

sealover wrote:
and it is still well above 7.

sealover wrote:
Nearly a third of the sea's alkalinity has been lost in the last half century.

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'.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote: Is nitrogen a chemical?

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

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?

Im a BM wrote:
"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.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
The same logic

Im a BM wrote:
makes it even MORE clear that there is no such "thing" as thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
Or science.

Im a BM wrote:
Or history

Im a BM wrote:
Is nitrogen a chemical?

Im a BM wrote:
Is nitrogen an element? It cannot be both, right?

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

Im a BM wrote:
It is sad that not everybody understands what it means.

Im a BM wrote:
But that shouldn't prevent everyone else from using the language that NEARLY everyone else understands.

Im a BM wrote:
So, markjfernandez, you can see what this website is all about.

Im a BM wrote:
It is tempting to mock the incredible ignorance displayed.

Im a BM wrote:
But ANY kind of attention is a reward that is not deserved.

Im a BM wrote:
Honestly, I was hoping you and I could teach by example.

Im a BM wrote:
We could model a way to have a rational discussion about the website topic.

Im a BM wrote:
Eventually, others might join.

sealover wrote:

markjfernandez lasted for 16 posts over several weeks.

I suspect that we won't hear from him again.

It is now 130 new members who have joined after I first posted about two years ago.

Unless markjfernandez has not given up on the site, it will be ZERO out of 130 new members who continue to participate.

Of course, the post above this one provides insight into why so very few rational adults want to be part of the discussion at this website.

1711 members, in theory.

Maybe six of them posted anything this week.

sealover wrote:
It is not because climate change stopped being an issue of interest to anyone.

sealover wrote:
It is because the handful of trolls who have been here for so many years, racking up so many thousands of posts, have made it a very toxic site.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

markjfernandez lasted for 16 posts over several weeks.

I suspect that we won't hear from him again.

It is now 130 new members who have joined after I first posted about two years ago.

Unless markjfernandez has not given up on the site, it will be ZERO out of 130 new members who continue to participate.

Of course, the post above this one provides insight into why so very few rational adults want to be part of the discussion at this website.

1711 members, in theory.

Maybe six of them posted anything this week.

The Church of Global Warming just isn't as popular as it was, Robert.

sealover wrote:
It is not because climate change stopped being an issue of interest to anyone.

Climate cannot change.

sealover wrote:
It is because the handful of trolls who have been here for so many years, racking up so many thousands of posts, have made it a very toxic site.

So you think mathematics is 'toxic'.
So you think the laws of thermodynamics you ignore is 'toxic'.
So you think the Stefan-Boltzmann law you ignore is 'toxic'

So you think your whining about the site and spamming across threads and insulting Brannon isn't 'toxic'.

Im a BM wrote: Who the heck is "Brannon"?

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:

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.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.

[b]sealover wrote:
What it is is the depletion of alkalinity.

No such thing.
[/b]

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'.

Im a BM wrote: Refusing to believe in alkalinity seems like an odd requirement for climate denial.

Im a BM wrote: Repeating "there is no such thing as alkalinity" over and over makes Into the Night's claim to be a "chemist" very implausible.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night
repeated five times in this post alone

"Shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells." - Into the Night


Refusing to believe in alkalinity seems like an odd requirement for climate denial. Repeating "there is no such thing as alkalinity" over and over makes Into the Night's claim to be a "chemist" very implausible.

However, perhaps by osmosis after seeing me write the term so many times, Into the Night correctly called it CARBONIC acid in this particular post.

Im a BM wrote:
Along with the utterly ABSURD assertion that shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells.

Another anti scientific assertion that is very easy to fact check.

Shellfish cannot use carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, or even bicarbonate ion to make calcium carbonate shell.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion is the only raw material that shellfish are adapted to take up and use for shell formation.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm sure the answer is "RQAA", but it seems like Into the Night needs to make up his mind about carbolic acid versus carbonic acid as the identified culprit for ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
Regardless of whether or not "water itself is a buffer for acid", as is so quixotically asserted

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'". - Into the Night
repeated five times in this post alone

"Shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells." - Into the Night


Refusing to believe in alkalinity seems like an odd requirement for climate denial. Repeating "there is no such thing as alkalinity" over and over makes Into the Night's claim to be a "chemist" very implausible.

However, perhaps by osmosis after seeing me write the term so many times, Into the Night correctly called it CARBONIC acid in this particular post.

Carbonic acid is not carbolic acid, dummy. Too bad you don't know any chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Along with the utterly ABSURD assertion that shellfish use carbonic acid to make their shells.

Another anti scientific assertion that is very easy to fact check.

Shellfish cannot use carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, or even bicarbonate ion to make calcium carbonate shell.

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

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion is the only raw material that shellfish are adapted to take up and use for shell formation.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
So, I'm sure the answer is "RQAA", but it seems like Into the Night needs to make up his mind about carbolic acid versus carbonic acid as the identified culprit for ocean acidification.

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
Regardless of whether or not "water itself is a buffer for acid", as is so quixotically asserted

Water itself is a buffer for both acid or alkaline.

Too bad you don't know any chemistry.

sealover wrote:
...deleted wordstuffing...
You just can't figure out which one forms from carbon dioxide and water!

sealover wrote:
...deleted whining...
At this point NONE of us post here anymore.
...deleted whining...

sealover wrote:
....
And markjfernandez obviously isn't coming back to post again at climate-debate.com
....

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:
....
And markjfernandez obviously isn't coming back to post again at climate-debate.com
....

I'm back!

Had a lot of things going on, including the general election for electing politicians to government. Figuring out for whom to vote, was and is important for climate change. Took me a while to do the research, but in the end I managed to vote for a party with a fairly 'green' outlook.

On the news recently, there was mention about the enormous carbon sink that peatlands are, and in the news report, it was featuring peatlands in Scotland. It appears peatlands are a form of wetland, so sealover's writings concerning how beneficial properly managing wetlands is, seems to apply to the Scottish peatlands mentioned.

From what sealover says, it seems that if in our different industrial and other processes, we can emit bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions, that could perhaps be much better than emitting carbon dioxide? If they can be fed into the sea, they could then help tackle 'ocean acidification'? By switching away from emitting CO2, this would probably also help reduce atmospheric CO2? Could the bacteria that reduces sulfate and iron, perhaps be used somehow where fossil fuels are used/burned, to produce bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions instead of 'ocean acidifying' carbon dioxide?

Nowadays I'm just skipping over the posts written by trolls... Will try to check back in again next Saturday.

markjfernandes wrote: I'm back!

markjfernandes wrote: Figuring out for whom to vote, was and is important for climate change.

markjfernandes wrote: On the news recently, there was mention about the enormous carbon sink that peatlands are, and in the news report, it was featuring peatlands in Scotland.

markjfernandes wrote: It appears peatlands are a form of wetland, so sealover's writings concerning how beneficial properly managing wetlands is, seems to apply to the Scottish peatlands mentioned.

markjfernandes wrote: From what sealover says, it seems that if in our different industrial and other processes, we can emit bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions, that could perhaps be much better than emitting carbon dioxide?

markjfernandes wrote: If they can be fed into the sea, they could then help tackle 'ocean acidification'?

markjfernandes wrote: By switching away from emitting CO2, this would probably also help reduce atmospheric CO2?

markjfernandes wrote:
Could the bacteria that reduces sulfate and iron, perhaps be used somehow where fossil fuels are used/burned,

markjfernandes wrote: Nowadays I'm just skipping over the posts written by trolls... Will try to check back in again next Saturday.

sealover wrote: Much of what I've posted is about managing wetlands to ensure that the submarine groundwater discharge they emit to the sea has plenty of alkalinity, in the form of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions.

sealover wrote: However, there is a broader question of how to oxidize fossil fuel in a manner that produces alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote: The highest energy yield would be from coupling nitrate reduction to methane oxidation, as many bacteria can do. This would produce alkalinity. But nitrate isn't readily available at significant concentration for use as oxidant.

A lower energy yield would be from use of abundant (sulfate) as oxidant.

It might be done abiotically as a giant battery.

Or we could use methane as FEED for sulfate reducing bacteria, who could get everything they need from sea water.

Methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria could be cultured in mass amounts.

Their "waste" product would neutralize acidity as it is flushed out to the sea.

Their biomass could be used as livestock feed, or to generate biofuel via fermentation, and as fertilizer.

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:
....
And markjfernandez obviously isn't coming back to post again at climate-debate.com
....

I'm back!

Had a lot of things going on, including the general election for electing politicians to government. Figuring out for whom to vote, was and is important for climate change. Took me a while to do the research, but in the end I managed to vote for a party with a fairly 'green' outlook.

On the news recently, there was mention about the enormous carbon sink that peatlands are, and in the news report, it was featuring peatlands in Scotland. It appears peatlands are a form of wetland, so sealover's writings concerning how beneficial properly managing wetlands is, seems to apply to the Scottish peatlands mentioned.

From what sealover says, it seems that if in our different industrial and other processes, we can emit bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions,

markjfernandes wrote:
that could perhaps be much better than emitting carbon dioxide?

markjfernandes wrote:
If they can be fed into the sea,

markjfernandes wrote:
they could then help tackle 'ocean acidification'?

markjfernandes wrote:
By switching away from emitting CO2, this would probably also help reduce atmospheric CO2?

markjfernandes wrote:
Could the bacteria that reduces sulfate and iron,

markjfernandes wrote:
perhaps be used somehow where fossil fuels are used/burned,

markjfernandes wrote:
to produce bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions

markjfernandes wrote:
instead of 'ocean acidifying' carbon dioxide?

markjfernandes wrote:
Nowadays I'm just skipping over the posts written by trolls... Will try to check back in again next Saturday.

sealover wrote:
Hi Mark

By next Saturday, I'll give a much more detailed response.

sealover wrote:
Much of what I've posted is about managing wetlands to ensure that the submarine groundwater discharge they emit to the sea has plenty of alkalinity, in the form of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions.

sealover wrote:
However, there is a broader question of how to oxidize fossil fuel in a manner that produces alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The highest energy yield would be from coupling nitrate reduction to methane oxidation, as many bacteria can do. This would produce alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
But nitrate isn't readily available at significant concentration for use as oxidant.

sealover wrote:
A lower energy yield would be from use of abundant (sulfate) as oxidant.

sealover wrote:
It might be done abiotically as a giant battery.

sealover wrote:
Or we could use methane as FEED for sulfate reducing bacteria, who could get everything they need from sea water.

sealover wrote:
Methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria could be cultured in mass amounts.

sealover wrote:
Their "waste" product would neutralize acidity as it is flushed out to the sea.

sealover wrote:
Their biomass could be used as livestock feed, or to generate biofuel via fermentation, and as fertilizer.