Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 10 of 12<<<89101112>
RE: Thermodynamics of adding acid to water19-07-2023 09:26
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
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.

Some of the vocabulary involved:

atomic radius, ionic radius, hydrated radius, charge density, and enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation.

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.

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?

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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

The flask wouldn't heat up that much. This story is obviously fiction.
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.

Why? Do you plan to add acid to sea water?
Im a BM wrote:
Some of the vocabulary involved:

atomic radius, ionic radius, hydrated radius, charge density, and enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation.

At least you are doing the courtesy of listing your buzzwords in advance.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

You don't 'hydrate' ions.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as 'hydrated radius'.
Im a BM wrote:
Compared to other elements, hydrogen has a very small atomic radius.

There is a smaller one!
Im a BM wrote:
The ionic radius is the distance between the nucleus and the most distant associated electron in the ionized form of the atom.

No electron in some ions. So this is a senseless statement. There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'. You are just calling atomic radius by a made up name.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as 'ionic radius'.
Sodium is not an ion.
Potassium is not an ion.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Not much higher at all. Only about 0.6eV.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as 'hydrated radius'.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen ions have the smallest ionic radius of all.

Incorrect. Helium does.
Im a BM wrote:
There are no electrons at all to occupy the outermost, or even the innermost, shell.
A proton is smaller than a hydrogen atom, yes.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen ions have very high charge density and create a large, hydrogen-bonded hydrated radius in water.

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:
When the water molecules line up around a hydrogen ion added to solution, the formation of hydrogen bonds releases energy.

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:
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.

There is no such thing as a 'hydrated radius'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

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
★★★☆☆
(921)
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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
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.

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".

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
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

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.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?


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

"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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]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.


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
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

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 [b]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
[/b], 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.




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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
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
★★★☆☆
(921)
IBdaMann wrote:
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?




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
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
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.

It moves TOWARD pH 7.0 when the drop of acid is added. Very slightly.

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

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."

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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Before getting into the thermodynamics of heat produced during formation of hydrogen bonds, I'll clarify a few points.

Heat is not produced during formation of any chemical bond.
Im a BM wrote:
Charge density of an ion is the charge per volume or charge per surface area.

Usually reported as coulombs per cubic meter.

Unit errors. Coulombs is not a charge per volume. Surface area is not volume.
Im a BM wrote:
Sodium ion has much higher charge density than potassium ion.

Not that much higher. I have already shown this. Repetition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Neither ions nor atoms have surfaces.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Water is H2O. There is no such thing as 'hydration radius' or 'hydrating of ions'. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
This slippery sheath of strongly bound water molecules increases the effective size of the ion.

There is no 'slippery sheath'. No molecule or atom changes the size of any other molecule or atom.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrated potassium ions can fit into spaces where hydrated sodium ions are too large to enter, such as the interlayers of illite clays.

There is no such thing as 'hydrated ions'.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Water is H2O. You cannot hydrate hydrogen or any ion of it.
Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who knows how to look up the definition of terms can see that "hydrated radius" is a very real thing,

No, it isn't. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
and that reporting charge density as volts alone is "unit error".

Unit error.
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.

No, you cannot make a logarithmic function linear.
Im a BM wrote:
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".

The average pH of the ocean is unknown (but it is higher than 7).
Im a BM wrote:
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.

No, a logarithm is not linear.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Imaginary equations and 'secret sauce' parameters are an attempted proof by contrivance. A fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Could it be carbonic acid concentration or carbonate ion concentration?

Conclusion based on contrivance.
Im a BM wrote:
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?

Nothing to discuss. It's a contrivance.
It is not possible to have a pH of zero. Math error.
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. (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.

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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Math error. Unit error. Hydrochloric acid has no pH.
Im a BM wrote:
But an acid we refer to as "who" would be magical indeed.

It wasn't. Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, the "impact"... on the sea water. Obviously this refers to some kind of exponential change that occurs to the acid or something.

Acid does not change. It is still acid.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Use of subjective as numeric. Math error. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I guess I owe somebody an apology for my failure to understand buffering.

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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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.

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 [b]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
[/b], 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.




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.

It is not 'less buffered'.
Im a BM wrote:
There is NO CHEMICAL PARAMETER that "changes exponentially" in sea water when a drop of acid is added.

Yes there is. pH.
Im a BM wrote:
Nor does an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.

Math error. Unit error.
Im a BM wrote:
Nor does a troll ever admit they were wrong about anything.

You obviously never do.
Im a BM wrote:
Nor do the insults and anti scientific claims ever stop.

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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Math error. Subjective used as a numeric.
Im a BM wrote:
We add one drop of acid to sea water, which starts at pH about 8.3.

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:
It moves TOWARD pH 7.0 when the drop of acid is added. Very slightly.

Math error. Subjective used as a numeric.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the "exponential change" only appears to occur with pure water, not sea water.

Math error. Logarithms are not linear.
Im a BM wrote:
Now, if we measure a titration curve

Chemistry error. There is no such thing as a 'titration curve'.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Yes. So?
Im a BM wrote:
It reaches pH 7 and we continue the titration.

Math error. Scalar compared to matrix.
Im a BM wrote:
Now it is declining AWAY from pH 7. Maybe this is where the "exponential effect" kicks in.

Math error. Logarithms are not linear. There is no point where nonlinearity 'kicks in'. Attempted conversion of function to nonfunction.
Im a BM wrote:
But the slow, steady decline in pH gets SLOWER as it approaches pH 6.35

Math error. Imposition of arbitrary fence.
Im a BM wrote:
pH 6.35 has a special place in sea water chemistry. It is the first pKa of carbonic acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
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.

Acid is not an ion. Chemistry error.
Im a BM wrote:
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

It was never sea water. False equivalence fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

False comparison of two acids as the same acid. False equivalence fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

Buffering is not a 'capacity'. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
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."

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
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

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.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?




"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
★★★☆☆
(921)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
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.

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

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


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
RE: "proton" refers to hydrogen ion (H+) in acid base chemistry04-11-2023 07:42
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Into the Night wrote:
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.

Buzzword fallacies. A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.

Denial of acid-base chemistry. Confusion of nuclear reaction vs chemical reaction. Fixation on irrelevance. Spamming. No argument presented.


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

Yes, someone who never actually studied chemistry probably wouldn't realize that when CHEMISTS say "proton", it is almost always in reference to hydrogen ion (H+), which is just a lone proton with an incredibly high charge density.

When the proton (hydrogen ion) separates from the oxygen of an oxyanion, that would be, for example, HCO3- turning into CO3(2-) and H+.

No nuclear reactions involved.

But someone who never studied chemistry wouldn't know that.

They would just repeat some meaningless mantra like:

"You cannot acidify an alkaline"

Pretty arrogant for a scientifically illiterate troll to accuse ANYONE else of failing to comprehend science.

Wait for it....

"Formaldehyde is a carbohydrate" - Dr. Parrot Poop
RE: pH buffering discussion began27-11-2023 08:59
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:



Coastal wetlands include river deltas.

The Nile delta was just a "swamp" until people drained it for agriculture.

The Ganges delta, the Mekong delta, etc. are among the world's most productive agricultural land, supporting dense populations.

The amount of sulfur oxidized to sulfuric acid is ENORMOUS. Literally gigatons of buried pyrite in drained wetland soils was oxidized to sulfuric acid as they formed what are known as "acid sulfate" soils.

Right now, the biggest crop for which more coastal wetland is being drained is oil palm. Once the waterlogged peat is exposed to oxygen, the carbon dioxide emissions from these areas rivals that of fossil fuel combustion. Rather than discharge alkalinity in groundwater flows, these areas export sulfuric-acid-enriched surface water to the sea.

The concept of "buffering" is an important one.

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 I add a drop of acid to sea water, the pH will hardly budge.

Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

In the carbonate system, a tiny fraction of the dissolved carbon dioxide is present at any moment in the form of carbonic acid.

Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.

A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.



This is how the controversial discussion about pH buffering began.

The outrageous claim was made that sea water showed a much smaller drop in pH, compared to pure water, when a drop of acid is added.

Apparently, this was taken as a "question" about some "exponential effect", which would be the "correct answer".
RE: troll buffering correction27-11-2023 09:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
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.

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.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?




Apparently, it was NOT the correct answer to suggest pH buffering as chemists understand it. Sea water = highly buffered Pure water = poorly buffered

No, the CORRECT answer is that the impact of a drop of acid is "more pronounced" on sea water, compared to pure water.

Trying to hide this ignorance of basic buffering behind a word game about "exponential effects" only makes the scientific illiteracy more self evident.
27-11-2023 15:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
Im a BM wrote:
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.

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.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?




Apparently, it was NOT the correct answer to suggest pH buffering as chemists understand it. Sea water = highly buffered Pure water = poorly buffered

No, the CORRECT answer is that the impact of a drop of acid is "more pronounced" on sea water, compared to pure water.

Trying to hide this ignorance of basic buffering behind a word game about "exponential effects" only makes the scientific illiteracy more self evident.


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: hydrothermal vents are a drop in the bucket27-11-2023 20:44
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.
RE: hydrothermal vents are a drop in the bucket27-11-2023 20:44
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.
28-11-2023 02:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: drained wetlands and acid sulfate soils28-11-2023 09:07
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?
28-11-2023 19:36
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?


Are you really going to go through life making up stuff as you go?

Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans other than the runoff that would go thru them after a rain anyway.

But you keep babbling away

PS. If the oceans were really rising there would not be any drained wetlands

ROTMFFLMMFAO


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: continuous drainage required28-11-2023 21:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?


Are you really going to go through life making up stuff as you go?

Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans other than the runoff that would go thru them after a rain anyway.

But you keep babbling away

PS. If the oceans were really rising there would not be any drained wetlands

ROTMFFLMMFAO




The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level, which IS rising more rapidly than seen in many thousands of years.


Parrot Boy says "It's a swamp." Claims that it is not possible to drain wetlands.

Snarky seems to think that if you drain them once, they stay dry.
28-11-2023 22:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?


Are you really going to go through life making up stuff as you go?

Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans other than the runoff that would go thru them after a rain anyway.

But you keep babbling away

PS. If the oceans were really rising there would not be any drained wetlands

ROTMFFLMMFAO




The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level, which IS rising more rapidly than seen in many thousands of years.


Parrot Boy says "It's a swamp." Claims that it is not possible to drain wetlands.

Snarky seems to think that if you drain them once, they stay dry.


LOL you still haven't explained how drained wetlands are adding more hydrogen sulfide into the oceans than hydrothermal vents do when drained wetlands add nothing back into the oceans.

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. So now the oceans aren't really rising, which makes this map nonsense



I hope that you have fun jerking off, because at this point u r a pro


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: remedial education - atoms versus molecules29-11-2023 20:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?


Are you really going to go through life making up stuff as you go?

Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans other than the runoff that would go thru them after a rain anyway.

But you keep babbling away

PS. If the oceans were really rising there would not be any drained wetlands

ROTMFFLMMFAO




The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level, which IS rising more rapidly than seen in many thousands of years.


Parrot Boy says "It's a swamp." Claims that it is not possible to drain wetlands.

Snarky seems to think that if you drain them once, they stay dry.


LOL you still haven't explained how drained wetlands are adding more hydrogen sulfide into the oceans than hydrothermal vents do when drained wetlands add nothing back into the oceans.

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. So now the oceans aren't really rising, which makes this map nonsense


I hope that you have fun jerking off, because at this point u r a pro




You still haven't explained if it makes you feel smarter to call someone else a "retard".

You DID explain that "Nitrous oxide is two molecules of nitrogen and one molecule of oxygen".

You are going to need to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before you will be able to make any sense of acid-base or oxidation-reduction chemistry.

Then you will need to learn the difference between hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid.

Then you will need to learn to read which word is being used before you respond.

There is too much remedial education required for me to do it here.

I would encourage you to apply your super high IQ.

For simplicity, you could start with "acid mine drainage" or "acid mine discharge".

The hydrology of a mine is much easier to understand than the hydrology of a wetland. It is strictly downhill movement of water, picking up the sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation.

Wetland hydrology, particularly in a drained wetland, is far more complicated.

The hydraulic gradients can be both lateral and vertical, and groundwater actually pushes uphill into the topsoil of a drained wetland. The lateral flows are at multiple elevations, with multiple groundwater bearing units of variable permeability conducting water toward the sea as submarine groundwater discharge. Usually a LOT more of the wetland water flows to the sea underground, rather than as surface water to the river outflow.

You'll have to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before any of the sulfuric acid stuff is going to make sense.

But here is a clue. H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. H2S is hydrogen sulfide. Not the same.
29-11-2023 20:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

The quantity of sulfuric acid entering the ocean as a result of hydrothermal vents is just a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of sulfuric acid entering the sea from places where wetlands have been drained.

Oxidation of buried pyrite is by far the greatest source of sulfuric acid entering the sea.

But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

On the other hand, where wetlands have NOT been drained, they are the greatest source of ALKALINITY entering the sea.

Sulfate reduction and pyrite burial under low oxygen conditions generate alkalinity as bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.


Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans.

But you keep babbling away



Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid. This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4. They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Does it make you feel smarter to call someone a retard?

It's okay. You have a super high IQ, right?


Are you really going to go through life making up stuff as you go?

Retard alert, drained wetlands are dry and do not add anything back into the oceans other than the runoff that would go thru them after a rain anyway.

But you keep babbling away

PS. If the oceans were really rising there would not be any drained wetlands

ROTMFFLMMFAO




The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level, which IS rising more rapidly than seen in many thousands of years.


Parrot Boy says "It's a swamp." Claims that it is not possible to drain wetlands.

Snarky seems to think that if you drain them once, they stay dry.


LOL you still haven't explained how drained wetlands are adding more hydrogen sulfide into the oceans than hydrothermal vents do when drained wetlands add nothing back into the oceans.

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. So now the oceans aren't really rising, which makes this map nonsense


I hope that you have fun jerking off, because at this point u r a pro




You still haven't explained if it makes you feel smarter to call someone else a "retard".

You DID explain that "Nitrous oxide is two molecules of nitrogen and one molecule of oxygen".

You are going to need to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before you will be able to make any sense of acid-base or oxidation-reduction chemistry.

Then you will need to learn the difference between hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid.

Then you will need to learn to read which word is being used before you respond.

There is too much remedial education required for me to do it here.

I would encourage you to apply your super high IQ.

For simplicity, you could start with "acid mine drainage" or "acid mine discharge".

The hydrology of a mine is much easier to understand than the hydrology of a wetland. It is strictly downhill movement of water, picking up the sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation.

Wetland hydrology, particularly in a drained wetland, is far more complicated.

The hydraulic gradients can be both lateral and vertical, and groundwater actually pushes uphill into the topsoil of a drained wetland. The lateral flows are at multiple elevations, with multiple groundwater bearing units of variable permeability conducting water toward the sea as submarine groundwater discharge. Usually a LOT more of the wetland water flows to the sea underground, rather than as surface water to the river outflow.

You'll have to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before any of the sulfuric acid stuff is going to make sense.

But here is a clue. H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. H2S is hydrogen sulfide. Not the same.


LOL the psychopath is triggered.

LOL you still haven't explained how drained wetlands are adding more hydrogen sulfide into the oceans than hydrothermal vents do when drained wetlands add nothing back into the oceans.

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. So now the oceans aren't really rising, which makes the above map nonsense


I hope that you have fun jerking off, because at this point u r a pro


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: "Last post" on 13 most recent threads29-11-2023 20:32
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(921)
Swan wrote:


LOL the psychopath is triggered.

LOL you still haven't explained how drained wetlands are adding more hydrogen sulfide into the oceans than hydrothermal vents do when drained wetlands add nothing back into the oceans.

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. So now the oceans aren't really rising, which makes the above map nonsense


I hope that you have fun jerking off, because at this point u r a pro[/quote]


When I opened the website, it showed the list of all the most recent threads and the name of the member who put up the "last post".

Of the thirteen threads with any recent activity, eleven of them show Snarky (aka Swan) as the member who put up the last post.

DESPERATELY trying to provoke someone into giving attention, usually with no reply.

Living in a constant state of "triggered".

At least THIS time someone returned the attention. A little bit.
29-11-2023 21:16
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
LOL your highest goal in life is that someone take you seriously enough to try to prove your nonsense wrong. You are a clown; you were a clown and no matter what I achieve or do not achieve in life you still will be a clown.

So fu-ck off BOZO




IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 29-11-2023 21:17
30-11-2023 04:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?
30-11-2023 06:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5737)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?


Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
30-11-2023 06:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:


How are you going to plug up every hydrothermal vent in the oceans that spew millions of gallons of acid continuously into the oceans?

And be specific




It is true that hydrothermal vents release hydrogen sulfide into sea water, and hydrogen sulfide generates sulfuric acid. At least in the presence of oxygen and sulfur oxidizing bacteria.

Hydrogen sulfide does NOT produce sulfuric acid.
Im a BM wrote:
This is one of MANY sources of acid entering the sea. A small one at that.

Still can't get the idea of buffering, can you?
Im a BM wrote:
But atmospheric carbon dioxide is the greatest source of ACID entering the sea.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Im a BM wrote:
I don't know what science fiction movie got you so scared of hydrothermal vents. There is no need to plug them.

You can't plug a volcano, even if you wanted to.


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
30-11-2023 06:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
Drained wetlands are only dry in the uppermost topsoil.

No. They are dry.
Im a BM wrote:
There is upward pressure of ground water seeping in constantly.

No. They are dry.
Im a BM wrote:
Upward seepage is intercepted with tile drains or otherwise directed into drainage ditches. Drainage ditches are at lower elevation than adjacent surface water and must be constantly pumped out and uphill over the levee or the field will flood.

Many drained wetlands only have the uppermost surface soil dry during part of the year. The rest of the year they get flooded.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands often exceeds in volume the flow of surface water to the sea from the same watershed.

Undisturbed wetlands have low oxygen conditions and accumulated organic carbon to facilitate sulfate reduction and pyrite burial. The alkalinity generated flows to the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Drained 'wetlands' do not flood. They are DRAINED.
Carbon is not organic.
There is no chemical called 'sulfate'.
There is no such thing as 'alkalinity flow'.
Im a BM wrote:
Drained wetlands have the buried pyrite in the surface soil exposed to oxygen, where sulfur oxidizing bacteria transform it into sulfuric acid.

Bacteria do not produce sulfuric acid.
Im a BM wrote:
This creates "acid sulfate" soils with average pH about 4.

There is no such chemical as 'acid sulfate'.
Im a BM wrote:
They export sulfuric acid into surface water as drainage ditches are pumped out.

Bacteria do not produce sulfuric acid.


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
30-11-2023 06:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level, which IS rising more rapidly than seen in many thousands of years.

A coastline is not water. It isn't rising. The sea along the California coast is not rising either (discounting tides and storm surges). It is not possible to measure the global sea level. You weren't alive thousands of years ago to measure it either.
Im a BM wrote:
Parrot Boy says "It's a swamp."

Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Claims that it is not possible to drain wetlands.

It is.
Im a BM wrote:
Snarky seems to think that if you drain them once, they stay dry.

They do. They are then no longer wetlands.


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
30-11-2023 07:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Im a BM wrote:
You still haven't explained if it makes you feel smarter to call someone else a "retard".

He doesn't need to, retard.
Im a BM wrote:
You DID explain that "Nitrous oxide is two molecules of nitrogen and one molecule of oxygen".

It is not.
Im a BM wrote:
You are going to need to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before you will be able to make any sense of acid-base or oxidation-reduction chemistry.

You don't understand either.
Im a BM wrote:
Then you will need to learn the difference between hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid.

You don't understand either.
Im a BM wrote:
Then you will need to learn to read which word is being used before you respond.

Word games won't help you.
Im a BM wrote:
There is too much remedial education required for me to do it here.

You can't teach what you do not know.
Im a BM wrote:
I would encourage you to apply your super high IQ.

IQ is a meaningless number. Argument from randU fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
For simplicity, you could start with "acid mine drainage" or "acid mine discharge".

Why?
Im a BM wrote:
The hydrology of a mine is much easier to understand than the hydrology of a wetland. It is strictly downhill movement of water, picking up the sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation.

Wetland hydrology, particularly in a drained wetland, is far more complicated.

Appeal to complexity fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted unrelated material and buzzwords...
You'll have to learn the difference between atoms and molecules before any of the sulfuric acid stuff is going to make sense.

This is YOUR problem.
Im a BM wrote:
But here is a clue. H2SO4 is sulfuric acid. H2S is hydrogen sulfide. Not the same.

Yet YOU said one is created out of the other. You are wrong.


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
30-11-2023 07:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?


Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
You were not alive 20,000 years ago to attempt to measure anything. There is no record from 20,000 years ago.


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
Edited on 30-11-2023 07:02
Page 10 of 12<<<89101112>





Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification44224-05-2024 22:43
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity213-07-2023 15:50
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10205-06-2023 13:19
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution121-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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