Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean
| 06-06-2023 21:57 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
sealover wrote: Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide. The "carbonate system" is a real thing. Far more than just two players in equilibrium. Do you know what bicarbonate is? Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species) Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot. Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment. Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity. Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid. This is basic textbook stuff. Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well. Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation. Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions. Here's the true teachable moment. Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation. Acid mine drainage pH is < 3. Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage. Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity. Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7. A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water. Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater. |
| 06-06-2023 21:59 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
sealover wrote: You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.[/quote] Another revealing, teachable moment. I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction". Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get. Sulfur has multiple oxidation states. Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur. Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form. Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized) Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get. Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose. Of course, there are always two sides to every debate. Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction" |
| 06-06-2023 22:00 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
sealover wrote:Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Science is not a paper, website, book, or pamphlet. It has no voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science. sealover wrote: No. It is not reduced at all. sealover wrote: No. Elemental sulfur is an element. sealover wrote: Sulfur is not organic. sealover wrote: Nope. It can burn. sealover wrote: Guess there is no bond to anything, eh? Such as in lead sulfate? sealover wrote: Science is not a debate. sealover wrote: Google is not God. It is not science either.[/quote] ____________________________________________________ As it will be relevant to any future discussion of biogeochemistry, it looks like we really do need to define a couple of terms. Organic sulfur is sulfur contained in an organic compound. (e.g. methionine) Just as organic nitrogen is nitrogen contained in an organic compound (e.g. all amino acids). Or organic phosphorus (e.g. phytic acid and a lot of pesticides). When any organic compound is "mineralized", the carbon becomes inorganic carbon and the (sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) becomes the "mineral" form of that element. It's a little touchier when discussing whether or not carbon itself is "organic". Inorganic carbon is a real thing, no matter what the definition Gestapo say. Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Organic carbon is in a different oxidation state (i.e. reduced), compared to inorganic carbon (oxidized) |
| 06-06-2023 22:01 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
sealover wrote: Human activity has created most of those microsites, where untreated acid mine drainage effluent enters the sea. But these places only teach us about the damage caused. Natural microsites where acid-enriched water seeps into the ocean have had a very long time to select for adapted communities of organisms. In the Mediterranean, for example, where geologic water of exceptionally high carbon dioxide content enters the sea, scientists can study how the organisms have been able to adapt to the conditions. This has already led to selective breeding of more tolerant breeds to help restore biodiversity.. |
| 06-06-2023 22:02 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Yes you can reduce a sulfate. Google sulfate reduction. Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it. Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it. Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage. Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide. Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts. Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?) Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter. Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized. Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis. Fortunately, calcium carbonate has molecular weight very close to 100 grams per mole so it's not too hard to convert. You just have to remember that it's two moles ANC for every mole of CaCO3, and 100 grams per mole. A solution with alkalinity of 1 gram per liter CaCO3 equivalents has 0.01 mole CaCO3 per liter and 0.02 moles per liter alkalinity. |
| 06-06-2023 22:04 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]sealover wrote: The 5-way Equilibria of the Ocean's Carbonate Buffer System meet the players: carbon dioxide, a gas that can dissolve in water or evolve from water carbonic acid, a weak acid dissolved in water bicarbonate, a monovalent oxyanion, dissolved in water carbonate, a divalent oxyanion, dissolve in water calcium carbonate, a solid salt, precipitating from or dissolving into water They all influence each other. A change just at one end will have cascading effects across to the other. For example, just by increasing the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide, a decrease in dissolved carbonate ion will occur. Four different equilibria in simultaneously in play between five different players. The math is complicated, but I can help guide you through it. |
| 06-06-2023 22:07 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]sealover wrote: All acid neutralizing capacity from oxyanions of acids Acid base chemistry back to the basics. Acid is opposite of alkaline. Acid things push protons into solution, lowering pH. Alkaline things neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH. Alkalinity is the capacity to neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH. Virtually all the world's alkalinity is derived from oxyanions. Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion of inorganic carbon. The acid neutralizaton is the protonation of an oxyanion. The divalent (two negative charges per ion) oxyanion, is the fully deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid known as carbonic acid. Hydroxide is an oxyanion. OH- . Monovalent oxyanion. Sulfate is an oxyanion, divalent, and it is the fully deprotonated form of the strongly acidic acid known as sulfuric acid. Acetate is a monovalent oxyanion, the deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid, acetic acid (vinegar). What they all have in common is the importance of a proton coming off or going on to an oxygen atom. Acid neutralizing capacity is all about the oxyanions. |
| 06-06-2023 22:11 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development. Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification. Historically, the difficulty of performing carbon and nitrogen analysis limited the quantity of data an investigation could acquire within limitations of budget and manhours. I was lucky to arrive when big leaps had just been made. The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption. It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon. In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2. After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC). Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion. All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC). The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon. Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples. The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous. For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to. The Kjeldahl digest was HARD! You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours. A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required. But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did? Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl! We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways. First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium. Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate. Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate. Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;; This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it. Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters. Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data. Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries. Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data. Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries. |
| 06-06-2023 22:12 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]sealover wrote: The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle. The oxidation of pyrite and the reduction of sulfate are major players in the earth's generation of acidity or alkalinity. Pyrite forms under chemically reducing conditions. It can be abiotic pyrite formation during geologic metamorphosis. It can be biotic pyrite formation as sulfate reducing bacteria use organic carbon as an energy source and sulfate as an oxidant to get that energy. In the presence of oxygen, chemically oxidizing conditions, sulfur oxidizing bacteria can get their energy by oxidizing sulfide to sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid. H2SO4. Hydrogen sulfate. A diprotic mineral acid. A source of sulfate divalent oxyanion. Two examples of localized oxidation or reduction of sulfur, and resulting localized generation of acidity or alkalinity. A mine has been dug into the chemically reduced conditions where pyrite exists. The mine allowed oxygen to enter and oxidize pyrite to sulfuric acid, with the help of some bacteria. Acidity generated. The mine drainage was directed into a constructed wetland. The chemically reducing conditions of the waterlogged wetland sediments, in the presence of available organic carbon as an energy source, facilitate pyrite formation. The sulfate from the sulfuric acid in the mine effluent is reduced back to sulfide in pyrite. "Pyrite burial" is one term often used. The alkalinity generated during pyrite burial is equal to the acidity generated during oxidation of that same amount of pyrite. In natural wetlands this happens too, but without upstream input of strongly acidic sulfuric acid. Sulfate is present in many natural water sources, especially in sea water. So instead of simply neutralizing the sulfuric acid with an equal amount of alkalinity, sulfate reduction in natural wetlands produces excess alkalinity. Which is good for the ocean. Because the hydrology underlying wetlands causes submarine groundwater discharge of that alkalinity to marine ecosystems. The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle. Gotta love it! |
| 06-06-2023 22:14 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: Halogenated xenobiotics in the ocean. Much attention is being paid to plastics in the ocean. Some of these plastics, such as PVC (poly vinyl chloride), are very difficult to degrade because their molecular structure contains halogens such as chlorine. Halogens include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. Many of the halogenated xenobiotics that humans have put in the ocean are not plastics. Take DDT as a case study. DDT is an insecticide that was once widely used in agriculture and other pest control. Birds up the food chain, after feeding on insects and other critters that had sublethal doses of DDT in their bodies, ending up laying brittle eggs and bird populations plummeted. Rachel Carson wrote the famous book "Silent Spring" about it. She was wrong in her prediction that DDT would prove toxic to human beings. The use of DDT in malaria control was never banned. Indeed, impoverished nations could still receive it free of charge. As malaria vectors became resistant to DDT, its use was discontinued many places. Far better biological control methods are available. But lacing mosquito tents with DDT is still very effective to protect people. Okay, DDT is a halogenated xenobiotic. It has five chlorine atoms in its structure. These chlorine atoms make it very difficult to degrade. Some of the degradation products, such as DDMU, are toxic to humans where DDT is not. Case study of DDT in the ocean. Tons of DDT ended up in barrels on the sea floor off the coast of southern California. They were put there on purpose and they are still a problem. Other tons of DDT ended up in the ocean sediments of the San Francisco Bay around the Port of Richmond, in northern California. They were not put there on purpose. It was the major loading center for DDT exports, and a lot of little accidents had deposited a lot of it in the water. What to do about it? Some say leave well enough alone. It's not going anywhere and it is more or less sealed off in sea floor sediments. But they needed to dredge for port improvements so they couldn't just ignore the stuff. One approach they attempted with partial success in the laboratory was to use a "white rot" fungus to treat the sediments. White rot fungi can degrade lignin, which is no easy feat. They only do so when they are desperate for nitrogen. Tearing up the lignin costs a lot of energy, but it releases nitrogen from ligno-protein complexes. So, they fed the fungi carbohydrate, starved it for nitrogen, and put it to work on the sediments. They were able to tear up some of the DDT, but it proved to be relatively ineffective as a practical remediation measure. The approach that worked better was to do something similar with bacteria. Under extreme low oxygen, chemically reducing conditions, these bacteria use the halogen (chlorine) as oxidant to acquire energy from the oxidation of organic carbon. They have to be fed carbohydrate from an outside source, but they can do it and do it well. Then let oxygen come back into the sediments and other bacteria will degrade the leftovers. |
| 06-06-2023 22:16 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity - The Basics Alkalinity is NOT a measurement of pH. Alkalinity (a noun) is NOT synonymous with "alkaline" (an adjective). Alkalinity is the measurement of acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). Alkalinity is reported as moles of protons per liter that can be neutralized. Alkalinity is also reported as grams of calcium carbonate equivalents, per liter. Since one mole of calcium carbonate weighs about 100 grams, and can neutralize TWO moles of protons, the conversion factor is 50. Acid neutralizing capacity times 50 = grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents. CaCO3 equivalents grams per liter divided by 50 = moles of ANC per liter. The overwhelming majority of alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate ions - HCO3(-) Each bicarbonate ion can neutralize one proton to become carbonic acid - H2CO3. The second biggest player, in much smaller amounts, is carbonate ion - CO3(2-) Carbonate can neutralize a proton to become bicarbonate, and a second to become carbonic acid. Other oxyanions in sea water, such as borate and phosphate, also supply a tiny fraction of the total alkalinity in sea water. Hydroxide ion - OH(-) provides the smallest fraction of all to total alkalinity in sea water, but provides 100% of the alkalinity in pure water. Pure water is not alkaline, but it does provide alkalinity. With pH 7, pure water contains 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC, as hydroxide ion. One contributor to sea water alkalinity that is finally getting attention is ORGANIC alkalinity. Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from anions of deprotonated organic acids. Organic alkalinity can comprise 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands. Among their many properties, organic anions can form stable complexes with ions of ferric iron - Fe(III), or ferrous iron - Fe(II), that are soluble at sea water pH. The bioavailability of iron in sea water is highly dependent on organic alkalinity. Ocean "acidification" is an unfortunate misnomer because it implies that the ocean is becoming "acidic" (pH < 7), which is not the case. The severe depletion of sea water alkalinity due to increased emissions of carbon dioxide causes only minimal decrease in pH due to the buffering effect of bicarbonate and carbonate ions. On the other hand, it DOES cause significant decrease in the bioavailability of carbonate ions which organisms need for shell formation. Commercial marine aquaculture already has to supply manmade alkalinity so that oyster farms, etc., can continue to produce. |
| 06-06-2023 22:17 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity generation in coastal wetlands Under low oxygen conditions, bacteria can use other electron acceptors (oxidants) to oxidize organic carbon and derive metabolic energy. When oxygen (O2) is used as the electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon, the products are carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide absorbed by sea water is the source of weak acid (carbonic acid) that is depleting the alkalinity of the ocean. When bacteria use other oxidants under low oxygen conditions to oxidize organic carbon, such as sulfate, nitrate, ferric iron, or manganese(IV), it does NOT generate carbon dioxide as the product. Instead, these microbial reduction reactions generate ALKALINITY (bicarbonate or carbonate ions) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Why the difference? Using sulfate - SO4(2-) for comparison. The oxygen atoms in oxygen gas are in a chemically OXIDIZED state. At great energetic expense, photosynthesis ripped an electron off a water molecule to generate hydrogen and oxidized oxygen (O2). When the oxidized oxygen atom is the oxidant, carbon dioxide is the product. Sulfate is another story. The four oxygen atoms in sulfate are in a chemically REDUCED state. They do not act as oxidant because they are already reduced. It is the sulfur atom in sulfate that is in a chemically oxidized state. It is the sulfur that get reduced to hydrogen sulfide, pyrite, etc. in order to oxidize the organic carbon. The oxygen that gets added to the organic carbon is already reduced, and the inorganic carbon product carries the extra electrons as anion charge in bicarbonate or carbonate ions. On a global scale, microbial sulfate reduction is the largest source of alkalinity entering the ocean as submarine groundwater discharge. In some environments, enough nitrate is present that microbial nitrate reduction under low oxygen conditions is another major source. Microbial reduction of ferric iron (to become ferrous iron) or manganese (IV) (to become manganese (II) are usually second after microbial reduction of sulfate as the source of alkalinity from wetlands. "Pyrite burial" is the term often used to describe the alkalinity generating process. Iron pyrite is formed when microbial reduction of ferric iron generates ferrous iron, and microbial reduction of sulfate generates sulfide, and the dissolved ions form the solid mineral pyrite. Conversely, when wetlands are drained, the buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Microbial oxidation of pyrite using oxygen (O2) generates sulfuric acid. The amount of (sulfuric acid) acidity generated by pyrite oxidation is equal to the amount of alkalinity generated by pyrite burial during microbial sulfate reduction. Whereas intact wetlands are a net source of alkalinity to the sea, drained wetlands become a net source of acidity to the sea due to pyrite oxidation. |
| 06-06-2023 22:19 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: This was one of the first responses to my very first post. It begins with an unsourced cut and past abstract of perfectly valid science. This is followed by bizarre anti scientific analysis from the dominant troll. "This document seeks to engender panic.." The "scientific" analysis is purely political, if not simply delusional. However, the abstract contains something the fills me with pride. It mentions that "..ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen.." were the main forms of nitrogen in submarine groundwater discharge. A search of scientific papers reveals that prior to 1995, the term "dissolved organic nitrogen" appears in the title of just three papers. One of them was my own, "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation..." (1994, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis). We developed a new method to measure dissolved organic nitrogen because the classic Kjeldahl digest was too cumbersome, slow, dangerous, and inaccurate. But dissolved organic nitrogen didn't really get much attention until after 1995. That was the year I published the paper in the journal Nature. The first sentence was: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated." The same issue of Nature (1995) includes a review article about the significance of my paper: "New cog in the nitrogen cycle". (easy to look up with just those words) Before that, virtually nobody was even trying to measure dissolved organic nitrogen in waters (soil water, ground water, surface water) They knew that it existed as a theoretical component, but assumed it was negligible. It is now standard fare to include measure of dissolved organic nitrogen, in addition to nitrate, ammonium, and sometimes nitrite, in water samples. Otherwise they miss what is often a major component of the total nitrogen. So, I am very proud of this contribution I made to real world science. Persulfate oxidation has also now largely replaced the Kjeldahl digest to measure organic nitrogen. Something else I am proud of. But I am MOST proud that OTHER discoveries I published are frequently cited in newer work related to climate change. For example, the importance of plant polyphenols (tannins) for sequestration of carbon into stable organic matter with very long mean residence time in soil. For example, the importance of plant polyphenols for minimizing the emission of nitrous oxide, a very powerful greenhouse gas. For example, the importance of plant mycorrhizal associations for facilitating the sequestration of carbon and minimizing nitrous oxide emissions. None of the local trolls displayed any interest |
| 06-06-2023 22:21 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:Swan wrote: Yes, "tons of hydrogen sulfide pour into the oceans every day." A small fraction of the total hydrogen sulfide coming into contact with sea water is of abiotic, geologic origin. Deep sea vents and other contact points where H2S from deep underground comes up into the sea. A small fraction of the total. Where does the vast majority of H2S coming into contact with sea water come from? Microbial reduction of sulfate. Sulfate reducing bacteria live in low oxygen conditions. They use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from oxidation of organic carbon. Often the reactions are carried out over multiple steps by more than one species of bacteria. One example of the overall reaction is with oxidation of methane. sulfate + methane = hydrogen sulfide + carbonate + metabolic energy SO4(2-) + CH4 = H2S + CO3(2-) + energy So, what happens when H2S contacts sea water? H2S = HS- + H+ It just released a proton to act like an acid A more complete look at sulfate reduction coupled to methane oxidation: SO4(2-) + CH4 = HS- + HCO3- + H2O You already got one mole of alkalinity produced, as bicarbonate (HCO3-) Where does the HS- go? Most of it ends up as iron pyrite, FeS2, a solid iron sulfide, consuming another proton to neutralize more acidity Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. Bicarbonate supplies most of the alkalinity in sea water. Carbonate is the second largest source of alkalinity in sea water. They are both oxidized forms of carbon (aka "inorganic") So, some of the hydrogen sulfide entering sea water is of geologic origin. It's net effect is acidifying. Especially when sulfide oxidizes (with oxygen) to make sulfuric acid. But most of the hydrogen sulfide contacting sea water is generated during sulfate reduction by microorganisms, as part of an acid neutralizing reaction. Anaerobic sulfate reduction, which consumes no free oxygen, generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of sulfate reduced to sulfide Conversely, aerobic sulfide oxidation produces two moles of acidity. H2S + 2 O2 = H2SO4 (an acid with two protons for two moles of acidity) But sulfuric acid is a minor player in ocean "acidification". Carbonic acid, a very weak acid formed by carbon dioxide in water, is added to the ocean at a rate orders of magnitude greater than sulfuric acid. As far as the "billions of years" go, geologic emission of hydrogen sulfide is tiny today compared to what it used to be. |
| 06-06-2023 22:23 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: Hydrogen sulfide, also known as "sewer gas" has a distinct rotten egg smell. But sea water generally does not smell strongly of rotten egg. Tons of hydrogen sulfide enter the sea every day from deeper in the earth, of abiotic and geologic origin. Deep sea vent type thing. Many, many, many more tons of hydrogen sulfide enter into sea water every day as a result of bacteria carrying out the biochemical process of sulfate reduction. So, where does all the rotten egg stink go? Hydrogen sulfide is a weak acid. In pH 8.2 sea water it dissociates into an anion and an acid proton. Hydrogen sulfide = bisulfide ion + acid proton H2S (in water) = HS- + H+ this is an acidifying process Bisulfide ion = sulfide ion + acid proton HS- = S(2-) = H+ this is an additionally acidifying process. It is very fortunate that only a very small fraction of the hydrogen sulfide entering sea water comes in from outside the ocean, or it would be serious acidification. Especially given what happens to bisulfide or sulfide ions in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing microorganisms. HS- (bisulfide ion) + 2 O2 = HSO4- (hydrogen sulfate or bisulfate ion) HSO4- (bisulfate) = SO4(2-) (sulfate) + H+ (acid proton) (more acidification) Fortunately, the vast majority of hydrogen sulfide coming into contact with sea water is generated within the ocean, under low oxygen conditions that prevent it from oxidizing to sulfuric acid. Rather than the acidifying effect of geologic hydrogen sulfide dissociating into bisulfide and sulfide ions, in situ generation of hydrogen sulfide by microorganisms is an acid neutralizing process. One example of the overall reaction is with oxidation of methane. sulfate + methane = hydrogen sulfide + carbonate + water + metabolic energy SO4(2-) + CH4 = H2S + CO3(2-) + H2O + energy So, what happens when H2S contacts sea water under low oxygen conditions? It dissociates and reacts with iron, with the assistance of bacteria who make their living off the process, to form solid iron pyrite. No sulfuric acid generated anywhere in the process. No rotten egg smell coming off it, either. |
| 06-06-2023 22:25 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Protons are positively charged subatomic particles found in the nucleus of every atom of every element. Carbon, for example, has atomic number 6 for its 6 protons in the nucleus. None of these are associated with hydrogen atoms. Even just among hydrogen atoms, 99.99% have protons that not hydrogen ions. They are bound up in molecules like water. Alkalinity is the capacity to neutralize hydrogen ions. |
| 06-06-2023 22:27 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote: So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. [quote] "..the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." This is buffering basics backwards. Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift. Sea water is highly buffered with bicarbonate and much lesser amounts of carbonate. Little of the total alkalinity in sea arises from other oxyanions. The only alkalinity or buffering in pH 7 water arises from the tiny concentration of hydroxide ion. That concentration is ten to the minus 7 molar. Pure water contains only 0.0000001 moles per liter hydroxide ion. So, the pH shift from adding one drop of acid to pure water is enormous. On the other hand, add one drop of acid to pH 8.2 sea water and the pH will be... 8.2 you would need a pH meter with three decimal places to see the difference. Whether or not the pH of the sea remains above pH 7 has nothing to do with concern about ocean "acidification", nor the definition of alkalinity. It is the concentration of carbonate ion that has changed so much with anthropogenic inputs of additional carbonic acid as carbon dioxide emissions. And if someone who actually understands chemistry is interested, there are some very effective and inexpensive solutions to restore alkalinity to the sea, even if we never get a handle on carbon dioxide emissions. |
| 06-06-2023 22:28 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote:IBdaMann wrote: No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity" Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns. Alkalinity is a noun. A measurable quantity, operationally defined by how much acid must be added to reach a designated endpoint pH. One problem might arise from the definition of alkalinity as "acid neutralizing capacity". It is archaic and would be more correct if it said "acidity neutralization capacity". But like ocean "acidification", it is the term already being used and understood, even if it is technically incorrect. Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7. And the absurd claim that sea water shows bigger pH shift than pure water when acid is added was never recanted. In all my years as a scientist, this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to. Of course, I don't speak for the entire scientific community. But at least I know the difference between alkaline and alkalinity. Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian. Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces? |
| 06-06-2023 22:29 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline" This nonsense sentence has been used at least a hundred times in this forum. The term "acid", unlike the term "alkaline", is an adjective as well as a noun. Acid as an adjective describes pH below 7, just as alkaline is the adjective for pH greater than 7. But there are no physical substances referred to as "alkalines", whereas there are literally thousands of substances that are correctly called "acids". So, "acid neutralizing capacity" actually makes sense. But "alkaline neutralizing capacity", like trying to "acidify an alkaline", is nonsense. Ocean "acidification" is not the process of the sea's pH shifting to less than 7. It is the measurable depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, reflected in the measurable decrease in concentration of carbonate ion. It is why oyster farms must now purchase carbonate salts to add to sea water in order for the larvae to form healthy shells. |
| 06-06-2023 22:31 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote: I have actually referenced this paper before in communications about organic alkalinity. For years, the importance of organic acid anions as contributors to alkalinity was overlooked. In the case of submarine groundwater discharge, these organic anions (deprotonated organic acids) can be 25% of total alkalinity. This paper points out that organic acids need to be taken into account for more accurate understanding of alkalinity. Since 2009, a lot of progress has been made in this area. The term "organic alkalinity" or ALKorg is now widely used and, more importantly, is now being measured directly in order to fill in the gaps. I'm pretty sure that Hemond never once said anything about "alkaline neutralizing capacity" or "alkalinity neutralizing capacity". They are scientists. They weren't just playing word games. I've already cited their work, anyway. If anyone wants to PM me, I could send you a bibliography about the subject, including the Hemond (2009) paper. |
| 06-06-2023 22:33 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote: So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. [quote] This post displays ignorance on multiple levels. It gets the basic concept of buffering absolutely BACKWARDS. It claims that pure water is more buffered against pH shift than pure water. Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood. It suggests that only a "magical acid" could have pH = 0. Let's try a solution of 1 N hydrochloric acid, or 1 N sulfuric acid, or 1 N nitric acid, and the list goes on. At 1 N (1 normal) the hydrogen ion is at 1 mol/liter. pH is the negative log of that concentration. Ten to the zero power = 1 the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in a 1 molar acid is zero. Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood. But it is okay that not everyone passed high school chemistry. What is NOT okay is the arrogance. "So, Mr. Chemistry genius, the correct answer is..." A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant. Even WITHOUT the insults and false accusations that are part of most of his posts, such a person is not worthy of any kind of respect. And this fool has dominated the discussion here for more than eight years. |
| 06-06-2023 22:35 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:sealover wrote:sealover wrote: The target audience for this thread would have been people who actually care about ocean "acidification" and wanted to discuss biogeochemistry related to it. Instead, it just attracted scientifically illiterate trolls who wanted to play stupid word games. Someday, the vermin might go away. Or leave at least ONE thread for the 99% of members who don't want to be insulted by idiots. |
| 06-06-2023 22:36 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: I have some questions What is the "exponential" effect, related to basicity, that is 2000 times greater in sea water, compared to pure water, when one drop of acid is added? Presumably, it involves some chemical parameter that can be measured and is reported in some kind of numeric unit you are willing to identify. What is the mystery variable in your equation, referred to as "solution"? It must be numeric, because it is used in a ratio. Does it have a name? Are you willing to share what units are used to measure/report it? What units are used for the "exponential" "basicity scale"? What distinguishes "basicity" from "alkalinity"? (alkalinity scale is linear) |
| 06-06-2023 22:38 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: In chemistry, the term "basicity" most often refers to the whole number of protons (hydrogen ions) that a molecule of a given acid can release into solution upon complete dissociation. Hydrochloric acid (HCl), basicity = 1; sulfuric acid (H2SO4), basicity = 2; phosphoric acid (H3PO4), basicity = 3; silicic acid (H4SiO4), basicity = 4, etc. If these are placed on a "basicity scale", it is a linear sequence of whole numbers. The "basicity scale" most often referred to by chemists is the Lewis Basicity Scale, and it is certainly not exponential. "Basicity" is also used in more laymen's terms as the converse of "acidity". In this context, the "basicity scale" is simply looking at the pH scale in reverse, acidity goes up in one direction, basicity goes up in the opposite direction. The pH scale is, indeed, exponential. A logarithm is the base 10 exponent of a given number. The number 100, for example, is 10 to the second power. The exponent is 2. The logarithm is 2. Logarithms are, by definition, "exponential". Still no clue what the "profound" change is that sea water shows upon addition of one drop of acid, not seen when this is done with pure water. Let's try two aquariums with live fish. One in sea water. One in pure water. We add one drop per hour of acid into each tank. Now we're looking to see the most "profound" change, so we have a pH meter, a conductivity meter, a salinity meter, total dissolved solids, a chloride electrode... and I wish we had been told which chemical parameter is expected to change so "profoundly" to measure it as well. Which fish died first? Obviously the one in the unbuffered water. Maybe that counts as "profoundly affected". The other parameters all show the greatest change in the pure water tank. Salinity, electrical conductivity, chloride concentration, total dissolved solids, pH all changed by orders of magnitude in the pure water tank. Those same chemical parameter showed barely discernable change in the sea water tank. I guess that mystery variable will remain a mystery. We'll never know what "Mr. chemistry genius" would have measured to prove he is correct about how much more profound the changes are to sea water. But if he is right, this shows how sensitive sea water is to profound changes caused by the input of acid, and raises alarms about ocean "acidification". |
| 06-06-2023 22:39 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, now we have been given an entirely new explanation. The original discussion was about how one drop of acid would impact sea water chemistry versus that of pure water. Now, it turns out that "I was measuring changes to the acid, not to the water" Because "you are focused on the solution when acid is added and I am focusing on the acid being neutralized." Yet the mystery variable in the equation called "solution" rather than "acid being neutralized". Supposedly it was this "solution" parameter that changed so much in sea water upon addition of one drop of acid that sea water was far more "profoundly affected" than pure water. Well, now we know that it was all about "changes to the acid, not to the water." I guess it makes sense that a thread about ocean "acidification" and alkalinity depletion would be most concerned about what happens to the acid, not to the water. A reasonable assumption, right? What has also now been clarified is that reference to the "basicity scale" was in order to "use basicity as the opposite of acidity on the pH scale". But what about the earlier claim that "...basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity". One might get the impression that this implied that the basicity scale and the pH scale were not the same thing, with an important distinction between one being "exponential" and the other "logarithmic". Okay, what is the big difference between "the acid being neutralized" by pure water versus sea water? What are the "changes to the acid and not to the water" that are so much more "profoundly affected" by sea water versus pure water. With an impact so important, it outweighs something as insignificant as pH change. Well, first the acid completely dissociates into hydrogen ions and the associated anions. No different in sea water versus pure water. Next, nearly all the hydrogen ions get neutralized by attaching to an anion and forming a very weak acid that does not dissociate. In pure water, the only available anion to do this is hydroxide, and there aren't many of them around. But we are just adding one drop of acid to a large volume of water. Virtually all the added acid, at least in the first drop, will be neutralized by reacting with hydroxide ions to form water molecules. In sea water, there is more than 10 times as much hydroxide ion present as in pure water (more than one pH unit higher). That will be the most reactive form of alkalinity to neutralize the first drop of acid added. The overwhelming majority of alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate ions. As more acid is added, bicarbonate will dominate the neutralization, forming carbonic acid (a very weak acid) which does not dissociate. And as far as ocean "acidification" is concerned, the most important impact is to selectively deplete the pool of carbonate ions, to a much greater degree (proportionately) than it depletes bicarbonate. But this will be the last time I bother addressing anything new said by the scientifically illiterate troll who insulted me way too many times. I'm sure that there will be more word games to try to explain that he was right all along to say that sea water is more "profoundly affected" by addition of one drop of acid, compared to pure water. I mean, just look at what happened to the acid, right? In the unlikely event that something new is said that is worthy of response, I would probably dig up one of the old quotes that displays appalling ignorance. The guy obviously never studied chemistry, and shouldn't pretend to understand it in some way that is superior to others. |
| 06-06-2023 22:40 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote:No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity" What if, perchance, one is found? Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This paper does not call anything "alkaline neutralizing capacity". It DOES give good background on "The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk)..." Recommended reading for those who have difficulty with these definitions. But what is special about the paper is recognition that organic alkalinity is a not a negligible contributor to total alkalinity. Indeed, our understanding of alkalinity is incomplete without it. Historically, the only measurement done was total alkalinity. Without knowing which anions were responsible, it was a simple titration with acid to reach a designated endpoint pH. Later, it was recognized that there was value in more complete characterization of the species involved. Four categories of alkalinity were reported. total alkalinity - indiscriminate measure of all acid neutralizing anions. hydroxide alkalinity - that portion of total alkalinity supplied by hydroxide ions. Usually a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. bicarbonate alkalinity - the lion's share of total alkalinity in most waters, supplied by bicarbonate ions. carbonate alkalinity - the much smaller fraction of total alkalinity supplied by carbonate ions. While it was known that other anions, such as phosphate, contributed to alkalinity, they were usually such a small fraction of the total, they were dismissed as negligible. This paper points out that anions of organic acids should not be ignored. Example: acetic acid (vinegar) has a pKa of about 4.75. This means that if a solution of acetic acid is adjusted to pH 4.75, exactly half of it will be dissociated into hydrogen ions and citrate ions. The other half remains undissociated citric acid - proton remaining attached rather than free in solution. In contrast, hydrochloric acid has a pKa of -6.3 This means that the pH would have to somehow be driven down to -6.3 in order to get half the hydrogen ions to reattach to chloride and form intact hydrochloric acid. To create pH below zero is possible, but almost never occurs in nature. Chloride ions provide no alkalinity because they won't neutralize any acid until the pH is well below zero. Acetic acid and its associated acetate ions, on the other hand, can be used to neutralize acidity at near neutral pH. Acetate buffers are used in chemistry. So, it turns out that anions of organic acids are a much more important contributor to alkalinity than previously believed. And they can do something very special that few other anions can. Many organic acid anions can form strong complexes with iron - either in ferric iron(III) or ferrous iron(II) form. Iron is a limiting nutrient in sea water. Organic alkalinity is responsible for making iron available to support photosynthesis in the sea. |
| 06-06-2023 22:42 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
1. Erratum The above post mistakenly (dyslexically) says "citric acid" and "citrate" in a couple of places where it should say "acetic acid" and "acetate". Acetate buffer with low pH and high alkalinity. Sea water has from about 0.002 - 0.0025 moles/liter alkalinity An acetate buffer made from 2 molar acetic acid, adjusted to pH 4.75 with sodium hydroxide, will contain 1 mole per liter acetic acid and 1 mole per liter sodium acetate. The acetate anion provides 1 mole per liter alkalinity. A pH 4.75 acetate buffer can have 500 times as much alkalinity as sea water. Low pH does not necessarily mean low alkalinity. 2. Iron, iron everywhere, and not a drop to drink. Iron is one of the most abundant elements found in sea floor sediments. Iron is one of the most scarce elements found in sea water. Nearly all the iron entering the sea comes in as solid particulates of ferric iron clay minerals. They are insoluble at sea water pH. Sink to the bottom and stay there. Some of the iron entering sea water is in dissolved form. Nearly all of it precipitates out into insoluble form. Dissolved ferric iron immediately drops out to form insoluble ferric hydroxides. Dissolved ferrous iron can remain soluble at sea water pH. But it is readily oxidized in the presence of free oxygen by bacteria to form insoluble ferric iron. Pretty much the only iron that can stay dissolved in sea water is bound to organic anions in chelation complexes. Literally, 99% of dissolved iron in sea water is complexed by organic anions. Ferrous iron cannot be oxidized to ferric iron with its reactive sites occluded by organic ligands. Ferric iron cannot form precipitates with hydroxide when its reactive sites are occluded by organic ligands. And it turns out that submarine groundwater discharge is a major source of iron to marine ecosystems. 3. "Alkaline neutralizing capacity". The useful paper with the abstract at the top of the post was brought to our attention, supposedly, because it would debunk the claim that "No credible scientist would call ANYTHING 'alkaline neutralizing capacity'". Of course, the paper itself never suggests the existence of such a term. But it was an honest mistake. It turns out that the paper hadn't been seen by the person who cited it. There was therefore no way he could have known that the assumption about what it would reveal was false. It was not a deliberate lie. Just a very ignorant false assumption. |
| 06-06-2023 22:42 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legitimate questions deserve a response. The first one, I don't get. I'm pretty sure I never said ferrous iron is more reactive than ferric iron. Ferric iron is FAR more reactive, due to its greater positive charge, than ferrous iron, in terms of forming precipitates with hydroxide. That is why ferrous iron can be soluble at sea water pH, while ferric iron cannot. Ferrous iron is more reactive than ferric iron in terms of potential oxidation. Microorganisms can make a living off the energy released by using oxygen to transform ferrous iron to ferric iron. Ferric iron cannot oxidize further. Even in terms of forming complexes with organic anions, ferric iron is more reactive. Precisely because it has greater positive charge. The second question. A pH 4.75 acetate buffer has equal number of acetate ions as it has molecules of (not dissociated) acetic acid. Why does the alkalinity not neutralize the acidity and raise the pH. Well there is a lot of acetic acid, but there isn't much acidity. pH 4.75 isn't that low. Many beverages are a hundred times as acidic. The acetic acid is not dissociated. It has not released its hydrogen ions into solution. A strong acid - hydrochloric, sulfuric, nitric, etc., will dissociate virtually 100% into hydrogen ions and (chloride, sulfate, nitrate, etc.) anions. Chloride, sulfate, and nitrate are worthless as buffers. You can't force a proton back on to them unless the pH is ridiculously low. Weak acids make good buffers. Acetic acid, like carbonic acid, is a weak acid. The anions of weak acids make good buffers - like the bicarbonate and carbonate ions in sea water. In the acetate buffer at pH 4.75, the acetic acid will not dissociate to release hydrogen into solution unless something RAISES the pH. The acetate will not accept a proton to become acetic acid unless something LOWERS the pH. So, its a 50-50 mix at a Mexican standoff. There is no way the pH is going to spontaneously shift because one of them somehow changes the other. One more fun fact. Since this buffer pH is precisely at the pka of acetic acid, this is where the buffer will have maximum strength to resist pH shift in either direction, upon addition of either hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions. |
| 06-06-2023 22:44 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: ================================================= "You are a moron who is trying to convince intelligent people that you are somehow an expert in science." "You don't even know the difference between science and religion." "I, for one, am not buying your claims of education. You have demonstrated nothing but scientific illiteracy and really lame excuses." "Check your posts. No point whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No demonstration of understanding any science." "You're a liar." Go ahead. Blame me. I've ruined what used to be "one of the Internet's best discussion sites." At least I know that adding one drop of acid to sea water does not leave its chemistry "profoundly affected" in a way that is "exponentially" more that what happens when acid is added to pure water. Sooner or later, someone who actually understands some chemistry will join in. |
| 06-06-2023 22:45 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote: So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good. sealover wrote: Carbonate is not a system. sealover wrote: Nope. Just two. sealover wrote: HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3. sealover wrote: It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other. sealover wrote: Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry. sealover wrote: The ignorance is yours. sealover wrote: Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2. sealover wrote: You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'. sealover wrote: Wups. No hydrogen. sealover wrote: No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator. sealover wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyone with the tiniest bit of chemistry training can see why it is pointless to discuss science with a scientifically illiterate troll. "You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced". Sulfate reduction is the most important source of alkalinity entering the sea. Pyrite oxidation by microorganisms is the most important source of sulfuric acid entering surface waters. "Acid mine drainage" is what it is called. Constructed wetlands have been used for more than 50 to neutralize acid mine drainage by creating low oxygen conditions for sulfate reduction. Coastal wetlands are a net source of acidity to the sea if they are drained, which most of them have been, because it allows oxygen to interact with pyrite. |
| 06-06-2023 22:49 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]Im a BM wrote: Coastal wetlands, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, have been drained for agriculture throughout the world. In the natural waterlogged wetland condition, low oxygen conditions are created in the soil. This seriously impedes aerobic decomposition, and dead organic matter piles up, year after year. Land surface elevation rises, if anything, and the weight of dead peat pushes it back down. Hundreds of feet thick below the ground surface. In the drained condition, soil organic matter decomposes at a rate 10-50 times greater than photosynthesis could possible replace via carbon sequestration. Land surface elevation subsides, year after year, until it is actually below sea level. The only reason it doesn't fill back up with water is because pumps constantly remove water from the drainage ditches, sending it uphill back into the river. Far and away the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering surface waters is from these drained wetlands, as they develop "acid sulfate" soils. Acid mine drainage is tiny by comparison, but provides a nice model because constructed wetlands so effectively neutralize it. In the wetland condition, microbial sulfate reduction generated pyrite and alkalinity. In the drained condition, microbial pyrite oxidation generates sulfuric acid and acid sulfate soil of very low pH. As a brief intro to the hydraulic gradient concept, consider the farmland that everyone can agree is below sea level. In the Netherlands, they didn't just drain the coastal wetlands, they expanded the farmland out into areas that were shallow sea. On one side of the dikes is the sea, poised at a higher elevation than the farmland on the other side. And then there all those beautiful windmills. Constantly pumping water from drainage ditches in the farmland, pushing it uphill and out into the sea. The farmland is below sea level. The drainage ditches are even farther below sea level. Far enough below to prevent the ground water table from rising up into the rooting zone. There is a steep hydraulic gradient between the sea level and the farmland, and subsurface flow from the sea constantly pushes in. The dikes might never break, but if the pumps shut off for too long, the farmland will be flooded. Technically, they stop being wetlands once they are drained. But they can easily become wetlands again if the drainage water stops being pumped out every day. |
| 06-06-2023 22:51 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1249) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems. In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. |
| RE: apparently, the only goal is to be a troll27-06-2023 10:36 | |
| Im a BM★★★☆☆ (595) |
IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote: You knew I was a chemistry faker from the start. |
| 27-06-2023 16:04 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14414) |
Why would any rational adult believe that the ocean is somehow losing alkalinity? Why would any rational adult believe that, if the ocean were to lose some alkalinity, that it would be a bad thing? Why do people who presumably have the thettled thienth for the above nonetheless find these questions so impossibly difficult to answer? Why do biogeochemists all feel compelled to EVADE the above questions? Every biogeochemist who has ever posted on this site has brazenly fled from the above questions in the most cowardly manner for all to see, leaving no doubt about purely political agenda of "ocean alkalinity." |
| RE: from "Mr. Chemistry Genius"14-07-2023 21:27 | |
| Im a BM★★★☆☆ (595) |
IBdaMann wrote: So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. [quote] Sealover correctly noted that pure water has very little buffering against pH change compared to sea water. Apparently, there are principles of chemistry they just didn't teach at the university. Sealover's "error" was corrected by explaining that "the impact of the drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water". It also corrects the "error" than an acid could have pH of zero. Only a "magical acid" could have pH zero. Many people don't study chemistry beyond high school, and didn't learn the details about how a 1 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has pH = 0. Because the pH scale is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration, and a 1 molar hydrochloric acid solution is ten to the zero power when expressed as a logarithm. But even people who didn't take chemistry in high school usually have a good enough intuitive sense of buffering to understand that that the impact of a drop of acid in pure water is more pronounced than on sea water. Much much more. There is no chemical parameter, "exponential" or otherwise, that changes more in sea water than in pure water when a drop of acid is added. Correction: the sea water will have a decrease in carbonate ion and an increase in carbonic acid, where neither is present in pure water. The pH change will be tiny. It is much more revealing of human psychology than water chemistry how someone could create an absurd, convoluted word game to claim that sea water changes more than pure water when a drop of acid is added. Yes, do the math. |
| 14-07-2023 21:50 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
Im a BM wrote:It is much more revealing of human psychology than water chemistry how someone could create an absurd, convoluted word game to claim that sea water changes more than pure water when a drop of acid is added. Well put. This is exactly what you've been doing. You screwed up on the chemistry that you have been claiming is your area of expertise. It was a rookie error and instead of thanking me for correcting you, you began delving ever deeper into word games in order to make your confusion appear to be may fault. Chemistry 101: As a solution moves away from 7, e.g. from pure water to sea water, the effect is exponential. I suspect that the reason you did not know this is that you are a totally dishonest, uneducated, scientifically illiterate moron who slept through high school, but I was genuinely polite and cordial when I pointed this out. You were so fearful of your charade being blown that you became apoplectic and went on the offensive. You didn't notice that it was already too late. You didn't notice that everyone on this site was already aware that you are a charlatan, a pretender. You didn't notice that all you had to do was to say "thank you, you are correct." You didn't notice that you simply allowed your poor wording (of the question) confuse you and that you could have just rewritten your question to reflect that as a solution moves away from 7, the effect is exponential. Instead, you first denied that it was exponential, revealing your mathematical incompetence. Then you became desperate and began making longer, more numerous and more incoherent attempts to confuse readers into thinking that I was somehow just wrong, and that I am somehow being ridiculous by claiming that as a solution moves away from 7, the effect grows exponentially. How is that working out for you? Have you considered going back to school? Would you like me to teach you chemistry? Just ask nicely and we might be able to work something out. Oh, remind me again, why do I owe you an apology? Im a BM wrote:There is no chemical parameter, "exponential" or otherwise, that changes more in sea water than in pure water when a drop of acid is added. Great word games! This is to what it has come. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. You are a babbling idiot. Please continue. |
| 15-07-2023 20:20 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21599) |
sealover wrote:Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: I am already here. So is IBDaMann. So is gfm7175. Still you deny chemistry. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-07-2023 20:32 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: The Sacramento-San Joaquin delta is not the world. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration' (except in Church of Global Warming chanting). sealover wrote: Nope. Water drains downhill. Doesn't matter how much you pump it. It will just drain back faster than you can pump it. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate' soil. Sulfuric acid does not come from any sulfate compound. 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 |
| 15-07-2023 20:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
sealover wrote: So...according to you...acid is alkaline. Carbon is not organic. There is no chemical called 'sulfate'. 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 |
| 17-07-2023 21:22 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Did Robup ever get around to explaining why anyone should believe that the ocean is somehow deing depleted of its alkalinity? Did you happen to catch whether Robup ever defined the global climate? Did Robup ever explain why anyone should believe that the ocean/sea level is somehow rising discernibly? Just wondering. |
Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification | 325 | 20-04-2024 00:23 |
| Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity | 2 | 13-07-2023 15:50 |
| Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity | 102 | 05-06-2023 13:19 |
| Californicators attempt ocean climate solution | 1 | 21-04-2023 18:18 |
| Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts | 13 | 18-08-2022 06:25 |