Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean > Page 17

Page 17 of 24

14-02-2025 08:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15308)	Im a BM wrote:At least 2000 times as powerful as the pH "buffering" that same liter of sea water provides by DILUTION. Correct. Dilution is not as strong as other buffering, but nonetheless is buffering, per the definition of buffering ... which was the original point of contention.
14-02-2025 17:43
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, not the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical", as IBdaMann asserted, to have pH = 0.0 THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why.
14-02-2025 19:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Edited on 14-02-2025 19:15
14-02-2025 19:34
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-02-2025 21:06
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98%
14-02-2025 22:30
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. [/quote]
14-02-2025 23:10
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98% Are you naturally retarded, or did your mother drop you on your beak? Or both? 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-02-2025 22:19
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98% Are you naturally retarded, or did your mother drop you on your beak? Or both? You are right, Swan. The problem with using ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor for oxidizing hydrogen is that it generates a lot of PROTONS. Acid hydrogen ions. H2 + 2Fe3+ = 2Fe2+ + 2H+ We could try a DIFFERENT iron reducer to go after the METHANE instead of the hydrogen. A methane oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria could consume the waste product of the methanogens and turn into into more microbial biomass for cows to digest. But those guys generate ACID as well. CH4 + 8Fe3+ + 2H2O = CO2 + 8Fe2+ + 8H+ It takes eight ferric iron ions to oxidize one molecule of methane, and it generates eight hydrogen ion acid protons. That is a whole lot of acidification to get a little methane oxidized. Maybe sulfate reducing bacteria could take out the methane in the cow guts before they belch it out. CH4 + SO4(2-) = H2S + CO3(2-) + H2O These guys could take out the methane without causing acid indigestion. To the contrary, they make ANTACID carbonate ion. Make the perfect mix, where sulfate reducers take out most of the methane, but just a smidgeon of ferric iron would allow more competitive iron reducers to make just enough acid to balance the acid neutralization from sulfate reduction. What do you think, Swan? Two kinds of methane oxidizers, with more than enough sulfate, but dietary restriction of available ferric iron to keep the more competitive methane oxidizers from making too much acid. Then the cows get to digest them to make them into meat and milk, instead of belching out those calories and organic carbon as methane. Edited on 17-02-2025 22:23
07-03-2025 02:06
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. Edited on 07-03-2025 03:01
08-03-2025 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: You are right, Swan. He didn't post anything significant. Im a BM wrote: The problem with using ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor for oxidizing hydrogen is that it generates a lot of PROTONS. Acid hydrogen ions. Hydrogen is not an ion nor an acid, Robert. Im a BM wrote: A methane oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria could consume the waste product of the methanogens and turn into into more microbial biomass for cows to digest. No such thing as 'methanogens'. Im a BM wrote: It takes eight ferric iron ions to oxidize one molecule of methane, and it generates eight hydrogen ion acid protons. There is no iron in methane. Hydrogen is not an ion nor an acid. Im a BM wrote: That is a whole lot of acidification to get a little methane oxidized. You can't acidify a buzzword. Im a BM wrote: Maybe sulfate reducing bacteria could take out the methane in the cow guts before they belch it out. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. Im a BM wrote: These guys could take out the methane without causing acid indigestion. Methane is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: To the contrary, they make ANTACID carbonate ion. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Make the perfect mix, where sulfate reducers take out most of the methane, but just a smidgeon of ferric iron would allow more competitive iron reducers to make just enough acid to balance the acid neutralization from sulfate reduction. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. Methane does not contain any sulfur nor iron. Iron is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: What do you think, Swan? He doesn't know chemistry either. Im a BM wrote: Two kinds of methane oxidizers, with more than enough sulfate, but dietary restriction of available ferric iron to keep the more competitive methane oxidizers from making too much acid. Then the cows get to digest them to make them into meat and milk, instead of belching out those calories and organic carbon as methane. Sulfate is not a chemical. Iron is not in methane. Iron is not an acid. Methane is not an acid. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not methane. 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
08-03-2025 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." Google is not God. Google is not chemistry. Im a BM wrote: For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." Carbon is not organic. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: Water is a buffer. Im a BM wrote: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Water is a buffer. Salt is not a buffer. Im a BM wrote: Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Chemistry is not Google. Chemistry is not a textbook. Im a BM wrote: Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Dilution is NOT buffering. Yes it is. 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
14-03-2025 08:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry.
15-03-2025 02:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." Carbon is not organic. Google isn't science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. Dilution is buffering. Google is not science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 You would do well to read this material Im a BM wrote: "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this Mantra 1a. Lame! Im a BM wrote: NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Trying to deny your own posts never works, Robert. You deny both theories of science and chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Not possible. Im a BM wrote: Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. Not possible. Im a BM wrote: and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). You are again demonstrating that you have no idea what pH is or how to calculate it. [b]Im a BM wrote: So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] [/b] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" You are again demonstrating that you have no idea what pH is or how to calculate it. Im a BM wrote: Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. It is not possible to have a pH of zero, Robert. Im a BM wrote: THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on IBdaMann or anybody else! Im a BM wrote: This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. They are run by liberals and Democrats, that spend their time censoring any opinion except their own. That doesn't happen on this forum. There are few others where it doesn't happen either, and discussion is open. Im a BM wrote: Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. You should read them. You cannot acidify an alkaline. 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
19-03-2025 21:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, not the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical", as IBdaMann asserted, to have pH = 0.0 THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why.
19-03-2025 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. Yup. Im a BM wrote: THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". Blatant lie (denial). DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS, ROBERT! Im a BM wrote: "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. Nope. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. ...deleted repetition of crap... You are describing yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." He already knows sufficient science and chemistry to know you are a fraud, pretending to be a 'professional chemist'. Im a BM wrote: This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. What class???? Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. So? Im a BM wrote: Gosh, I wonder why. RQAA. Pay attention, Robert. 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
27-03-2025 22:42
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, not the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical", as IBdaMann asserted, to have pH = 0.0 THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why.
29-03-2025 01:18
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	This thread really IS about the biogeochemistry of restoring alkalinity to the ocean, primarily through the action of sulfate reducing bacteria. As an example, a methane oxidizing sulfate reducing bacteria, under low oxygen conditions: CH4 + SO4(2-) = H20 + H2S + CO3(2-) Methane + sulfate = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate versus CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2 for aerobic respiration or combustion Methane + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate. Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree. Google "defining one's terms" March 12, 2022, just a couple of days after my first post. Into the Night was insisting "You cannot reduce a sulfate". Sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions is a very important biochemical process in nature. In the absence of oxygen, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-)- as oxidant to exploit organic carbon. Aerobic respiration or combustion transforms organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Methane, for example: CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2 Microbial sulfate reduction transforms organic carbon into carbonate and bicarbonate ion. Methane, for example: CH4 + SO4(2-) = H2O + H2S + CO3(2-) or HCO3- methane + sulfate ion = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate ion, bicarbonate Carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions created by microbial sulfate reduction are the major source of ALKALINITY for many marine ecosystems. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water, consequently increasing the concentration of carbonic acid that forms from a fraction of 1% of the dissolved CO2. This carbonic acid is the source of the "acidification" in the term ocean acidification. Through the pH buffering of the carbonate system in sea water, this increase in acid concentration has caused little change to the pH of the ocean. It has only decreased by about 0.1 pH unit, from about pH 8.3 to pH 8.2. Of far greater consequence to marine life than the small pH change is the substantial change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion, CO3(2-), to form calcium carbonate shell. Commercial marine aquaculture must now purchase chemical carbonate to add to sea water in order for it to have enough for healthy larval shell development. This thread includes scientific discussion of the biogeochemistry of alkalinity generation in coastal wetlands by microbial sulfate reduction. Entering the sea primarily as submarine groundwater discharge, the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions produced by sulfate reduction are a counterbalance to the carbonic acid entering the sea from the atmosphere. Note, this was just two days in, and Into the Night is insisting that SULFATE CANNOT BE REDUCED, already with the parrot-like repetition of the same short sentence over and over and over. And that was the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. The entire chemical explanation for why sulfate cannot be reduced was the four word claim that it cannot. Okay, in steps IBdaMann. Again, just two days after we met, "Why don't you just define what you mean by 'reduce a sulphate'. Maybe you both actually agree. Google 'defining one's terms'." Well, one thing I notice is that he spells sulfate as "sulphate". So I know he did NOT study chemistry in the United States. His familiarity with the term "sulfate" was to use the British spelling. He hadn't communicated chemistry enough with US chemists to have gotten used to the American spelling of sulfate. Hadn't seen the term on the blackboard/whiteboard of an American chemistry classroom. Wherever he might have studied chemistry, it wasn't the US. But, IBdaMann thinks its possible that Into the Night and I might agree, if we just play some kind of definition word game. Either sulfate can be reduced or it cannot. I have been in literally thousands of discussions with chemists - the kind with chemistry degrees from universities. Nobody gets to come in and define their own terms. Nobody gets to have their own personal definition for sulfate reduction. Nobody has to define "sulfate reduction" every time they use the term. Well, two and a half years later... Good old Into the Night, chemistry genius, still says that sulfate cannot be reduced. Still making up rules for chemistry, like the one about how pH is not ALLOWED to be less than or equal to zero. Still repeating one short sentence over and over and over.. Then RQAA because he ALREADY repeated that sentence.. But, IBdaMann didn't use the term "sulphate" because he actually ever studied chemistry somewhere, and it was not the United States. He wasn't accustomed to the British spelling because he usually wrote for British chemists. IBdaMann had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he hadn't seen or used the word "sulfate" often enough with its American spelling to know it. And he had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he didn't know to immediately respond to Into the Night's absurd unsupported contrarian assertion prohibiting sulfate reduction as something that defies science. Of course, sulfate CAN be reduced by sulfate reducing bacteria. To be clear, "oxidant" is another way of saying "terminal electron acceptor" in oxidation reduction reactions.
07-04-2025 19:03
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
07-04-2025 19:30
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems. Look the Thorazine does not work unless you take it on time 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
08-04-2025 23:53
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
09-04-2025 02:12
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems. Hopefully Joe Biden's Delaware home will be submerged by the rising ocean. Not my fault he bought a home there with Chinese bribes 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
10-04-2025 00:11
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
10-04-2025 06:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Stop spamming.
10-04-2025 18:43
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
11-04-2025 10:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. The sea level isn't rising. Im a BM wrote: When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. The sea level isn't rising. Im a BM wrote: This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. The sea level isn't rising. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems. The sea isn't rising. Alkalinity is not a chemical. 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: Power Assisted Estuaries14-04-2025 03:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Power Assisted Estuaries Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
02-05-2025 01:01
sealover ★★★★★ (2116)	Power Assisted Estuaries Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
05-05-2025 06:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Stop spamming.
08-07-2025 18:24
sealover ★★★★★ (2116)	This thread really IS about the biogeochemistry of restoring alkalinity to the ocean, primarily through the action of sulfate reducing bacteria. As an example, a methane oxidizing sulfate reducing bacteria, under low oxygen conditions: CH4 + SO4(2-) = H20 + H2S + CO3(2-) Methane + sulfate = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate versus CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2 for aerobic respiration or combustion Methane + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate. Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree. Google "defining one's terms" March 12, 2022, just a couple of days after my first post. Into the Night was insisting "You cannot reduce a sulfate". Sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions is a very important biochemical process in nature. In the absence of oxygen, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-)- as oxidant to exploit organic carbon. Aerobic respiration or combustion transforms organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Methane, for example: CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2 Microbial sulfate reduction transforms organic carbon into carbonate and bicarbonate ion. Methane, for example: CH4 + SO4(2-) = H2O + H2S + CO3(2-) or HCO3- methane + sulfate ion = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate ion, bicarbonate Carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions created by microbial sulfate reduction are the major source of ALKALINITY for many marine ecosystems. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water, consequently increasing the concentration of carbonic acid that forms from a fraction of 1% of the dissolved CO2. This carbonic acid is the source of the "acidification" in the term ocean acidification. Through the pH buffering of the carbonate system in sea water, this increase in acid concentration has caused little change to the pH of the ocean. It has only decreased by about 0.1 pH unit, from about pH 8.3 to pH 8.2. Of far greater consequence to marine life than the small pH change is the substantial change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion, CO3(2-), to form calcium carbonate shell. Commercial marine aquaculture must now purchase chemical carbonate to add to sea water in order for it to have enough for healthy larval shell development. This thread includes scientific discussion of the biogeochemistry of alkalinity generation in coastal wetlands by microbial sulfate reduction. Entering the sea primarily as submarine groundwater discharge, the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions produced by sulfate reduction are a counterbalance to the carbonic acid entering the sea from the atmosphere. Note, this was just two days in, and Into the Night is insisting that SULFATE CANNOT BE REDUCED, already with the parrot-like repetition of the same short sentence over and over and over. And that was the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. The entire chemical explanation for why sulfate cannot be reduced was the four word claim that it cannot. Okay, in steps IBdaMann. Again, just two days after we met, "Why don't you just define what you mean by 'reduce a sulphate'. Maybe you both actually agree. Google 'defining one's terms'." Well, one thing I notice is that he spells sulfate as "sulphate". So I know he did NOT study chemistry in the United States. His familiarity with the term "sulfate" was to use the British spelling. He hadn't communicated chemistry enough with US chemists to have gotten used to the American spelling of sulfate. Hadn't seen the term on the blackboard/whiteboard of an American chemistry classroom. Wherever he might have studied chemistry, it wasn't the US. But, IBdaMann thinks its possible that Into the Night and I might agree, if we just play some kind of definition word game. Either sulfate can be reduced or it cannot. I have been in literally thousands of discussions with chemists - the kind with chemistry degrees from universities. Nobody gets to come in and define their own terms. Nobody gets to have their own personal definition for sulfate reduction. Nobody has to define "sulfate reduction" every time they use the term. Well, two and a half years later... Good old Into the Night, chemistry genius, still says that sulfate cannot be reduced. Still making up rules for chemistry, like the one about how pH is not ALLOWED to be less than or equal to zero. Still repeating one short sentence over and over and over.. Then RQAA because he ALREADY repeated that sentence.. But, IBdaMann didn't use the term "sulphate" because he actually ever studied chemistry somewhere, and it was not the United States. He wasn't accustomed to the British spelling because he usually wrote for British chemists. IBdaMann had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he hadn't seen or used the word "sulfate" often enough with its American spelling to know it. And he had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he didn't know to immediately respond to Into the Night's absurd unsupported contrarian assertion prohibiting sulfate reduction as something that defies science. Of course, sulfate CAN be reduced by sulfate reducing bacteria. To be clear, "oxidant" is another way of saying "terminal electron acceptor" in oxidation reduction reactions.
18-08-2025 03:19
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked For anyone interested in alternative facts regarding ocean acidification, just click on the blue "Ocean Acidification Debunked" link in IBdaMann's post. However, if one is hoping for insight into how water evaporation plays any role in maintaining ocean pH balance, IBdaMann kept that secret for last. In addition to invoking DILUTION as an important mechanism of pH buffering, but that is not mentioned here either. EVAPORATION ensures that all that acid floats off into the sky before it can hurt anything, as should be added to this in an update. DILUTION ensures that any added acid becomes harmless as it spreads out far and wide into the enormous volume of water that is the sea. The alternative facts regarding pH buffering and ocean acidification.. Others would say that the reason the sea's pH has barely dropped more than 0.1 pH unit despite enormous addition of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) is because carbonate ion has been neutralizing hydrogen ions by becoming bicarbonate. Corals, shellfish, many plankton, and other sea creatures use carbonate ion acquired from the sea water to make calcium carbonate shell. It is becoming more difficult for them to acquire enough carbonate ion for healthy growth and the sea uses up its pH buffering capacity by transforming carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions.
21-08-2025 03:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15308)	Im a BM wrote: For anyone interested in alternative facts regarding ocean acidification, It's kind of funny how you refer to water evaporation as an "alternative fact." Im a BM wrote:However, if one is hoping for insight into how water evaporation plays any role in maintaining ocean pH balance, IBdaMann kept that secret for last. Too funny! Water evaporation isn't the secret you seem to think it is. Just because you only learned about it recently from me doesn't mean that there are any others who somehow don't understand how water evaporation works. Im a BM wrote: In addition to invoking DILUTION as an important mechanism of pH buffering, It's not so much of a "mechanism" as it is a reality. There's actually a lot of water in the ocean, whether you believe it or not. You could dump one hundred buckets of your perfect magical acid that is also magically immune to the ocean's carbonate and bicarbonate buffering, and all of the acid would still get completely diluted. I know, amazing, isn't it? All completely without any "mechanism." Im a BM wrote: The alternative facts regarding pH buffering and ocean acidification.. Is this your way of asking me to teach you why the ocean is able to buffer in the first place? I know you had a WACKY theory but it was pretty stupid. Just let me know if you need me to shed some light on why the ocean is as it is. Im a BM wrote: Others would say that the reason the sea's pH has barely dropped more than 0.1 pH unit Actually, nobody cares about the babbling's of people who claim to be omniscient and who think they can simply declare what the ocean's pH is and whether it is increasing or decreasing. Really, nobody cares about those people. Just ignore them. Im a BM wrote:Corals, shellfish, many plankton, and other sea creatures use carbonate ion acquired from the sea water to make calcium carbonate shell. If only you could just leave it here, you'd be golden. Im a BM wrote:It is becoming more difficult for them to acquire enough carbonate ion for healthy growth Nope. You blew it. Yes, your stupid religion requires you to believe this nonsense, but if you were ever required to support your religious dogma, you'd have nothing. Im a BM wrote: and the sea uses up its pH buffering capacity by transforming carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions. I have great news! The ocean isn't "using up" it's pH buffering capacity! Isn't that great to learn? Sure, every day the ocean loses carbonate ions to bicarbonate ions, but every day, erosion all over the planet washes more carbonate ions into the ocean. It's glorious how this all works.
29-08-2025 02:24
sealover ★★★★★ (2116)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
29-08-2025 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. Why? The sea level hasn't risen. sealover wrote: When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. The sea level hasn't risen. Go study hydrodynamics. Carbon isn't organic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. It cannot be reduced. sealover wrote: Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. Why do you want to pump seawater into a wetland? Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Sulfate is not a chemical. It cannot be reduced. Alkalinity is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. Blocking a river won't work. The berm will be washed away. sealover wrote: We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems. The sea level hasn't risen. Alkalinity is not a chemical. You are just repeating your BS again, Robert. 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
18-09-2025 21:38
sealover ★★★★★ (2116)	Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater. When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction. Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean. Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it. It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide. Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea. We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
23-09-2025 01:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level What 'rising sea level'?? 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
23-09-2025 02:30
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level What 'rising sea level'?? Try sounding it out. You have the ability to figure it out 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-09-2025 03:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level What 'rising sea level'?? Try sounding it out. You have the ability to figure it out What 'rising sea level'? 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
23-09-2025 03:07
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level What 'rising sea level'?? Try sounding it out. You have the ability to figure it out What 'rising sea level'? The sea level rises and falls every day. So are you retarded? 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-10-2025 17:08
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood. You are a liar. You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen. sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification. Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap. sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis. You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious. However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore. sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators. Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!" sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials. You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked Forget about posting gibberish papers. Just explain your point in your own words. Within a short time of my very first post, IBdaMann informed me that I am "a liar", I do NOT have a degree in chemistry ("painfully obvious"), I "came here to preach non science gibber babble", and he knew all about my connections to "scientifically illiterate political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters!" Perhaps most revealing of all, he complained about the "sheer incomprehensibility of (my) gibber babble". Translation: He didn't have a clue what those big words mean. Because he never actually studied science. Most new members quit at that point in the process, as IBdaMann was proud to tell me. "You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap." By then there were already only a handful left. Today, you just aren't going to find many on this site. Period.
17-10-2025 18:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level What 'rising sea level'?? Try sounding it out. You have the ability to figure it out What 'rising sea level'? The sea level rises and falls every day. So are you retarded? No, it doesn't. The TIDE rises and falls TWICE a day. The overall sea level doesn't change. 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

Page 17 of 24

Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	624	13-07-2026 21:27
Ocean ph.	89	13-07-2026 10:25
Ocean "acidification" once and for all?	32	08-07-2026 17:12
The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones	23	07-07-2026 17:35
What the pHuck are bupHers, ocean acidipHication, and "pH"?	5	07-05-2026 21:38