Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

So you are making the claim that the Earth is as it always has been and never changes.

Swan wrote:
How do we know about past ice ages?

Swan wrote:
Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Swan wrote:
Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate.

Swan wrote:
Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Swan wrote:
Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth's two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?

No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"

What if, perchance, one is found?

Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489
Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

Harold F. Hemond
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Downloaded by MIT on October 2, 2009 [url]http://pubs.acs.orgPublicationDate

ctober1,1990|doi:10.1021/es00080a005[/url]

The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters. However, in the presence of organic acids, ANC measurements are inconsistent with many conceptual definitions of ANC or Alk and do not provide an adequate characterization of the acid-base chemistry of water.

This is where you back yourself into a corner and force others to decide whether or not you are a troll infecting the discussion:

Im a BM wrote:Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns.

OK. It would appear that you are a troll.

Im a BM wrote:Alkalinity is a noun.

Acidity is a noun.

Im a BM wrote:Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7.

Acidic is an adjective for anything with pH less than 7.

Im a BM wrote:And the absurd claim that sea water shows bigger pH shift than pure water when acid is added was never recanted.

The question "Why should any rational adult believe in Climate Change?" has never been answered.

Im a BM wrote: In all my years as a scientist, this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to.

Apparently, in all your years, nobody ever pulled you aside and told you that you don't get to speak for any "community," that you only get to speak for yourself and that you must define all your terms when asked.

It's that last part that gives you away that you are clearly no scientist. No actual scientist would confuse science with a religion whereby sacred terms and dogma are never explained. No scientist would ever bitch and whine and gripe and snivel about having his religious sermon interrupted by CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS. One would have to be an absolute moron to think for even a moment that you are a scientist.

You don't get to shush questions from others on the basis that countless, unnamed others who are not participating in the discussion somehow "already know the answer." You need to be addressing the people involved in the discussion and answer their questions, otherwise be prepared to be recognized as the troll you are. You need to define all your terms specifically because:

1. You might have accidentally misspoken
2. Others might understand the same term(s) to mean something else, and understand different terms to mean what you mean.
3. Others might have misunderstood something else you said that becomes confusing
4. To confirm that you are not merely preaching some WACKY religion

... and if someone asks you a question, it's likely that he's not the only one who is thinking that.


The point is, if you'll just set aside the assumption that you somehow speak for science, check your religion at the door and just stick with your area of expertise, you'll get miles further. Sure, you'll get questions and perhaps corrected on some points, but you should consider that the bonus that makes it all worthwhile.

Im a BM wrote:Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian.

Enlighten me. What is the difference between synonyms? I'm sure Harvey would be eager to help you out.

Im a BM wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces?

It's funny that you mention this. Prior to your arrival, there weren't any problems that this community couldn't handle. Then suddenly, the board is getting spammed by your religious sermons in practically every single thread while you block-tackle those asking you questions.


Why should any rational adult believe that the ocean is losing its alkalinity?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?

This was one of the first responses to my very first post.

It begins with an unsourced cut and past abstract of perfectly valid science.

This is followed by bizarre anti scientific analysis from the dominant troll.

"This document seeks to engender panic.."

The "scientific" analysis is purely political, if not simply delusional.

However, the abstract contains something the fills me with pride.

It mentions that "..ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen.." were the main forms of nitrogen in submarine groundwater discharge.

A search of scientific papers reveals that prior to 1995, the term "dissolved organic nitrogen" appears in the title of just three papers.

One of them was my own, "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation..." (1994, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis).

We developed a new method to measure dissolved organic nitrogen because the classic Kjeldahl digest was too cumbersome, slow, dangerous, and inaccurate.

But dissolved organic nitrogen didn't really get much attention until after 1995.

That was the year I published the paper in the journal Nature.

The first sentence was:

"The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

The same issue of Nature (1995) includes a review article about the significance of my paper:

"New cog in the nitrogen cycle". (easy to look up with just those words)

Before that, virtually nobody was even trying to measure dissolved organic nitrogen in waters (soil water, ground water, surface water)

They knew that it existed as a theoretical component, but assumed it was negligible.

It is now standard fare to include measure of dissolved organic nitrogen, in addition to nitrate, ammonium, and sometimes nitrite, in water samples.

Otherwise they miss what is often a major component of the total nitrogen.

So, I am very proud of this contribution I made to real world science.

Persulfate oxidation has also now largely replaced the Kjeldahl digest to measure organic nitrogen. Something else I am proud of.

But I am MOST proud that OTHER discoveries I published are frequently cited in newer work related to climate change.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols (tannins) for sequestration of carbon into stable organic matter with very long mean residence time in soil.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols for minimizing the emission of nitrous oxide, a very powerful greenhouse gas.

For example, the importance of plant mycorrhizal associations for facilitating the sequestration of carbon and minimizing nitrous oxide emissions.

None of the local trolls displayed any interest