RE: Thermodynamics of adding acid to water19-07-2023 09:26 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
1970. My seventh grade science teacher did a demonstration that went awry. He wanted to show us why they say, "add acid to water. don't add water to acid." He had a flask about 2/3 full of pure water. He had an eyedropper with concentrated sulfuric acid. He asked for a volunteer to come hold the flask while he added a drop of acid. The student volunteer got spooked when it instantaneously heated up and he dropped the flask. So, let's talk about the thermodynamics of adding acid to water and see if there is a difference between pure water and sea water in the response. Some of the vocabulary involved: atomic radius, ionic radius, hydrated radius, charge density, and enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation. Even in concentrated form, sulfuric acid is virtually 100% dissociated into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions. It contains very little water to hydrate the ions. Water molecules will line up their dipoles to form a hydrated radius around an ion in solution, held close to each other by hydrogen bonds. Compared to other elements, hydrogen has a very small atomic radius. The atomic radius is the distance between the nucleus and the most distant associated occupied electron shell in a neutral atom. The ionic radius is the distance between the nucleus and the most distant associated electron in the ionized form of the atom. In the case of many cations, the ionic radius is smaller than the atomic radius, because they lost the electron(s) in the outermost shell to become ions. The ionic radius of sodium is smaller than the ionic radius of potassium, because potassium has a lot more electrons than sodium, filling up more of the more distant outer shells. Both sodium and potassium ions have the same charge (+1). Because the sodium ionic radius is so much smaller than the potassium ionic radius, sodium ions have much higher charge density than potassium. As a consequence of the higher charge density, sodium actually lines up water molecules into a hydrated radius that is LARGER than the hydrated radius of potassium. Hydrogen ions have the smallest ionic radius of all. There are no electrons at all to occupy the outermost, or even the innermost, shell. Hydrogen ions have very high charge density and create a large, hydrogen-bonded hydrated radius in water. When the water molecules line up around a hydrogen ion added to solution, the formation of hydrogen bonds releases energy. If concentrated acid is added to pure water, none of the water molecules initially present are part of the hydrated radius of any ion. Except for extremely tiny concentration of H+ and OH- If that acid is added to sea water, many water molecules initially present have already formed a hydrated radius around an ion (sodium, chloride, bicarbonate, etc.) and have already released the energy from the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation. POP QUIZ for those who are already experts in thermodynamics. Two one liter flasks at the same temperature, one with pure water and one with sea water. Will one of them heat up more than the other when a drop of concentrated acid is added? What will happen to the surface tension, boiling point, and vapor pressure of the solutions - will they increase or decrease after adding acid? Yeah, I'm inviting a stupid word game to expose the ignorance of our "resident experts in science" regarding thermodynamics. |
19-07-2023 15:58 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14149) |
Im a BM wrote:So, let's talk about the thermodynamics of adding acid to water and see if there is a difference between pure water and sea water in the response. OK, I'm following along for the moment, but the two words I'm not seeing are "exponential" and "logarithmic." I still haven't read anything from you acknowledging that as pH moves away from 7.0 (e.g. pure water), the effect increases exponentially. You have denied this on several occasions and have mocked me for having stated it, so I have to wonder if you are simply continuing your raving here. Anyway, we'll see. Please continue. Im a BM wrote: Even in concentrated form, sulfuric acid is virtually 100% dissociated into separate hydrogen ions and sulfate ions. This is interesting trivia, although it is not readily apparent how this relates to climate. I do admit that I did not know this previously. OK, my turn. Mickey Mantle holds the record for the most World Series home runs (18), RBIs (40), runs (42), walks (43), extra-base hits (26), and total bases (123) ... both before and after the Global Warming tipping point. Im a BM wrote:It contains very little water to hydrate the ions. Adding sulphuric acid to your drinking water is not the best way to getting more electrolytes. Im a BM wrote: Compared to other elements, hydrogen has a very small atomic radius. What about compared to Helium? Anyway, I get your point. Im a BM wrote: When the water molecules line up around a hydrogen ion added to solution, the formation of hydrogen bonds releases energy. I don't think so. I think chemical energy is simply converted to thermal energy and the first law of thermodynamics is forthwith adhered. No energy is ever created out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law, and somehow "released." Im a BM wrote: If that acid is added to sea water, many water molecules initially present have already formed a hydrated radius around an ion (sodium, chloride, bicarbonate, etc.) and have already released the energy from the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation. This is a very good point, very well worth mentioning. It provides the explanation to your anecdote that provides the answer to your "pop quiz" below. Im a BM wrote: POP QUIZ for those who are already experts in thermodynamics. You provided a spoiler in your anecdote about the chemistry demonstration that went awry. The explanation is just above in the sea water having already formed a hydrated radius around an ion. . |
19-07-2023 19:52 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote: The flask wouldn't heat up that much. This story is obviously fiction. Im a BM wrote: Why? Do you plan to add acid to sea water? Im a BM wrote: At least you are doing the courtesy of listing your buzzwords in advance. Im a BM wrote: You don't 'hydrate' ions. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'hydrated radius'. Im a BM wrote: There is a smaller one! Im a BM wrote: No electron in some ions. So this is a senseless statement. There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'. You are just calling atomic radius by a made up name. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'. Sodium is not an ion. Potassium is not an ion. Im a BM wrote: Not much higher at all. Only about 0.6eV. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'hydrated radius'. Im a BM wrote: Incorrect. Helium does. Im a BM wrote: Ewwwww. What a mess of buzzwords!! There is no such thing as a 'hydrogen-bonded hydrated radius'. Atoms don't have 'charge density'. Batteries do though. Im a BM wrote: TANSTAAFL. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Formation of a bond, any bond, does not create energy out of nothing. Energy is REQUIRED to form any bond or to break any bond. No energy, no chemistry! No reaction takes place at all! Indeed, matter does not even exist at all! Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as a 'hydrated radius'. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: You certainly are. The buzzwords you come up with are astoundingly bad. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
RE: hydration of ions19-07-2023 21:06 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
Before getting into the thermodynamics of heat produced during formation of hydrogen bonds, I'll clarify a few points. Charge density of an ion is the charge per volume or charge per surface area. Usually reported as coulombs per cubic meter. Sodium ion has much higher charge density than potassium ion. Water molecules approaching the surface of a sodium ion encounter a much stronger electric field, compared to potassium, to line up their dipoles and form hydrogen bonds. The hydration of sodium ion creates a hydrated radius that is actually larger than the hydrated radius of potassium ions. The hydrated radius is the distance from the nucleus to the furthest water molecule tightly alligned around the ion by hydrogen bonds. This slippery sheath of strongly bound water molecules increases the effective size of the ion. Hydrated potassium ions can fit into spaces where hydrated sodium ions are too large to enter, such as the interlayers of illite clays. A bare hydrogen ion has 2 times ten to the TENTH power as much charge density as a sodium ion. Water molecules get close to a VERY strong electric field when they hydrate a hydrogen ion. Anyone who knows how to look up the definition of terms can see that "hydrated radius" is a very real thing, and that reporting charge density as volts alone is "unit error". We can eliminate the confounding variable of anything that can be construed as an "exponential effect" by referring directly to the concentration of hydrogen ion, rather than pH. So, rather than say "pH 7", say 0.0000001 molar H+. Sea water, with pH about 8+, becomes 0.00000001 molar H+. And now there is no parameter that can be construed as "exponential". Add a drop of strong acid to a 0.0000001 molar H+ versus a 0.00000001 molar H+ solution, and eliminate any potential "exponential effect" complicating the interpretation of what happens. So, an imaginary equation of Magnitude of effect = delta (solution)/delta (pH) gets changed to Magnitude of effect = delta (solution)/delta (H+) At least now the ratio can have comparable units for meaningful comparison, but the equation is still meaningless without specifying what "solution" means. Supposedly, there is some "solution" parameter that shows a change that is more than the change to hydrogen ion concentration on a linear scale. This magic solution parameter changes much more in sea water than it does in pure water when acid is added, but the name of that parameter is a secret. Could it be carbonic acid concentration or carbonate ion concentration? That would be worth discussing. Of course, this happens when we add the "magical acid with pH 0.0", which apparently does not really exist? Because "Mr Chemistry Genius" needed to be given the "correct answer" to refute the apparently false claim that pure water shows greater pH change than sea water when a drop of acid is added. (original text available on page 1) Here come the absurd word games! Even the basic term "alkalinity" is just a word game. And that's the only word game I want to play right now. Because the term ocean "acidification" is the significant depletion of carbonate ion alkalinity, at least by 30%, due to carbon dioxide inputs that form carbonic acid. |
19-07-2023 22:04 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14149) |
Im a BM wrote: We can eliminate the confounding variable of anything that can be construed as an "exponential effect" by referring directly to the concentration of hydrogen ion, rather than pH. You didn't eliminate the exponential nature of the function. You highlighted it. Im a BM wrote: Because "Mr Chemistry Genius" needed to be given the "correct answer" to refute the apparently false claim that pure water shows greater pH change than sea water when a drop of acid is added. You are mischaracterizing your original error in order to make it appear that you never made your original error. Sea water will have an exponentially greater effect on acid than pure water will. If you are finally going to acknowledge this, we can move on. Im a BM wrote: Because the term ocean "acidification" is the significant depletion of carbonate ion alkalinity, at least by 30%, due to carbon dioxide inputs that form carbonic acid. Reminder: This is when and where you explain why any rational adult should believe that this is happening, but you EVADE on that point. Since you don't find it important enough for anyone to believe this is happening, no one needs to understand any of the material you posted and you should not expect anyone to be sufficiently motivated to care about what you have to say on the matter. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
RE: how it all got started...20-07-2023 20:32 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. ------------------------------------------------------------ "If you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0." It is easy to mix up a non-magical acid which has pH 0.0, or even less than zero. 1 molar hydrochloric acid, for example, has pH 0. But an acid we refer to as "who" would be magical indeed. "The impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." Yes, the "impact"... on the sea water. Obviously this refers to some kind of exponential change that occurs to the acid or something. A "pronounced" "impact" that cannot be assessed by any measurable parameter. And that is the "correct answer" to refute the obviously incorrect claim that pure water shows a big change in pH upon addition of acid. I guess I owe somebody an apology for my failure to understand buffering. |
20-07-2023 21:51 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14149) |
Im a BM wrote: I must apologize. Now that I reread the text, it looks like I could have made better choices on my selection of prepositions between "of," "by," and "on" ... and upon looking at it again, I know what I meant to write but, yes, I can see how it could easily be read differently. I therefore duly apologize. I will assume full responsibility for the past miscommunication. If I had it to do over again, I would write that the sea water's ability to neutralize that strong acid is exponentially greater than the pure water's ability to neutralize the same quantity of the same acid. I offer myself for sentencing before the board. |
RE: "Chemistry 101"?21-07-2023 17:46 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
IBdaMann wrote: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. For a solution to change "from pure water to sea water", there is no "exponential effect" - just an irrelevant pivot from the point that pure water is less buffered against pH change than sea water. There is NO CHEMICAL PARAMETER that "changes exponentially" in sea water when a drop of acid is added. Nor does an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0. Nor does a troll ever admit they were wrong about anything. Nor do the insults and anti scientific claims ever stop. |
21-07-2023 19:42 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14149) |
Im a BM wrote:There is NO CHEMICAL PARAMETER that "changes exponentially" in sea water when a drop of acid is added. The exponential change occurs as you move away from 7.0 ... I believe I have stated this many times. You know that the inverse is a logarithm. Im a BM wrote:Nor does a troll ever admit they were wrong about anything. ? Im a BM wrote:Nor do the insults and anti scientific claims ever stop. The claim here is a mathematical one. I claim that the inverse of a logarithmic function is an exponential function ... but you claim otherwise, yes? |
RE: sea water move TOWARD 7 with first drop22-07-2023 21:14 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote:There is NO CHEMICAL PARAMETER that "changes exponentially" in sea water when a drop of acid is added. Okay, let's do the math. The "exponential change occurs as you move away from 7.0" Let's assume that "7.0" refers to pH 7.0. We add one drop of acid to pure water, which starts at pH 7.0 It moves away from pH 7.0 when the pH drops by a lot. We add one drop of acid to sea water, which starts at pH about 8.3. It moves TOWARD pH 7.0 when the drop of acid is added. Very slightly. So, the "exponential change" only appears to occur with pure water, not sea water. Now, if we measure a titration curve while we perform the alkalinity test on sea water, we will see a slow but steady shift TOWARD pH 7 as we continue to add more and more drops of acid. It reaches pH 7 and we continue the titration. Now it is declining AWAY from pH 7. Maybe this is where the "exponential effect" kicks in. But the slow, steady decline in pH gets SLOWER as it approaches pH 6.35 pH 6.35 has a special place in sea water chemistry. It is the first pKa of carbonic acid. H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- dissociation constant (ka)= 4.5 x 10 to the minus 7. pKa = 6.35 (negative logarithm of dissociation constant) When pH = 6.35, the concentration of carbonic acid and bicarbonate ion are equal. This is where sea water has its maximum buffering capacity. But you can hardly call it sea water after you have titrated it down to pH 6.35 But as you add more drops of acid near pH 6.35, that is where you see the smallest change in pH per drop added. The other dissociation constant related to carbonic acid is for the very weak acidity of the bicarbonate ion. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) dissociation constant Ka2 = 4.7 x 10 to the minus 11. pKa2 = 10.33 If we add sodium hydroxide to sea water, it will move pH AWAY from 7 as it goes up from about 8.3. But if we keep adding more and more base, the rate of pH rise will slow as it approaches pH 10.33. Sea water has the second most buffering capacity at pH 10.33. But it really isn't sea water at that point. So, the greatest "exponential effect" occurs when adding acid to pure water, as the pH moves rapidly below 7, where "the exponential change occurs as you move away from 7.0." |
22-07-2023 23:38 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14149) |
Im a BM wrote:Okay, let's do the math. Great, but let's do the math correctly. You can't shift from the exponential to analyzing the logarithmic to conclude that the exponential is logarithmic. When you refer to alkalinity being the "acid neutralizing capacity" ... that capacity increases exponentially the more it differs from pH 7.0. The pH line represents the logarithm (inverse) of the exponential function of acidity/alkalinity. When you asked "What will have a greater effect on an acid?" the correct answer, in all cases, is that sea water will far more powerfully affect any given acid more than pure water because the acid-neutralizing capacity of a solution increases exponentially as its pH difference from 7.0 increases. Im a BM wrote:Let's assume that "7.0" refers to pH 7.0. That would be an excellent assumption. Im a BM wrote:We add one drop of acid to pure water, which starts at pH 7.0 Let's reword this: We add quantity Q of acid A to a solution of pure water S(7.0) and also to a sea water solution S(8.3) The answer will be the same whether Q is one drop or 4 ml or 8 oz, and the answer will be the same whether acid A is pH 0.0 or 6.95 or anywhere in between. Im a BM wrote: It moves away from pH 7.0 when the pH drops by a lot. The alkalinity of S(8.3) is so much more powerful (exponentially so) than that of pure water S(7.0) that when Q of A is introduced, the pH of S(8.3) hardly budges relative to the pH shift that S(7.0) experiences. S(8.3) can absorb the ions of A with room to spare while S(7.0) is an overcrowded refugee camp that is having trouble finding bed space for all the incoming migratory ions. Im a BM wrote: We add one drop of acid to sea water, which starts at pH about 8.3. Yes. Exactly. Im a BM wrote: So, the "exponential change" only appears to occur with pure water, not sea water. So here's where the communication breakdown occurs. The exponentially stronger alkalinity is already in the sea water when we introduce Q of A. The relatively modest change in the pH of S(8.3) from Q of A is the tell-tale sign of this. Im a BM wrote:But the slow, steady decline in pH gets SLOWER as it approaches pH 6.35 This is good information. Has anybody used this particular property of sea water/buffering in any commercial applications? |
23-07-2023 00:33 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote: Heat is not produced during formation of any chemical bond. Im a BM wrote: Unit errors. Coulombs is not a charge per volume. Surface area is not volume. Im a BM wrote: Not that much higher. I have already shown this. Repetition fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Neither ions nor atoms have surfaces. Im a BM wrote: Water is H2O. There is no such thing as 'hydration radius' or 'hydrating of ions'. Buzzword fallacies. Im a BM wrote: There is no 'slippery sheath'. No molecule or atom changes the size of any other molecule or atom. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'hydrated ions'. Im a BM wrote: Water is H2O. You cannot hydrate hydrogen or any ion of it. Im a BM wrote: No, it isn't. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Unit error. Im a BM wrote: No, you cannot make a logarithmic function linear. Im a BM wrote: The average pH of the ocean is unknown (but it is higher than 7). Im a BM wrote: No, a logarithm is not linear. Im a BM wrote: Imaginary equations and 'secret sauce' parameters are an attempted proof by contrivance. A fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Conclusion based on contrivance. Im a BM wrote: Nothing to discuss. It's a contrivance. It is not possible to have a pH of zero. Math error. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Semantics fallacies. 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 |
23-07-2023 00:42 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote: Math error. Unit error. Hydrochloric acid has no pH. Im a BM wrote: It wasn't. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Acid does not change. It is still acid. Im a BM wrote: Use of subjective as numeric. Math error. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: That would be a start, but I know you won't do it. 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 |
23-07-2023 00:46 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote: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. It is not 'less buffered'. Im a BM wrote: Yes there is. pH. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Unit error. Im a BM wrote: You obviously never do. Im a BM wrote: And they don't with you. 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 |
23-07-2023 01:03 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote: Math error. Subjective used as a numeric. Im a BM wrote: The pH of the oceans is unknown. However, I will allow this contrivance. It is not sea water. It is a sample of water from the sea. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Subjective used as a numeric. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Logarithms are not linear. Im a BM wrote: Chemistry error. There is no such thing as a 'titration curve'. Im a BM wrote: Yes. So? Im a BM wrote: Math error. Scalar compared to matrix. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Logarithms are not linear. There is no point where nonlinearity 'kicks in'. Attempted conversion of function to nonfunction. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Imposition of arbitrary fence. Im a BM wrote: Acid is not an ion. Chemistry error. Im a BM wrote: It was never sea water. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: False comparison of two acids as the same acid. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Buffering is not a 'capacity'. Math error. Im a BM wrote: Math error. Logarithms are not linear. Obviously, you have no concept of buffering or acid-base 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 |
RE: buffering against pH change26-07-2023 22:34 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. "the impact of the drop of acid would be more pronounced on sea water than on pure water" Clearly, this refers to the impact of the water on the acid. What else could it possibly mean? It was never a "question" being asked of the dominant troll (Please tell me, Mr. Chemistry Genius, which will have more impact on the acid?) It was unsolicited trolling to make a truly absurd assertion that anyone with the tiniest bit of buffering knowledge will recognize as such. It was a moronic attempt to debunk the claim that pure water is less buffered against pH change, compared to sea water, when a drop of acid is added. |
RE: "magical acid" = ignorance of pH scale27-07-2023 21:00 | |
Im a BM★★★☆☆ (503) |
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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale. Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0 |
28-07-2023 00:29 | |
Into the Night![]() (21149) |
Im a BM wrote: Unit error. Math error. 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 |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity | 2 | 13-07-2023 15:50 |
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification | 319 | 26-06-2023 00:41 |
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 |