Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Im a BM wrote:
This was the response to my very first posts here.

I should thank IBdaMann for tracking down the abstract of such an excellent review article about nutrients in submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). Where terrestrial surface waters enter the ocean, the volume entering as submarine groundwater discharge often exceeds the river surface water flow above. Groundwater enters the sea as horizontal flow through permeable subsurface flow paths, finally reaching an outlet seep below sea level.

Im a BM wrote:
I love the fact that this article included DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN among the analysis. Just a quick read of the abstract reveals the distinction being made between "inorganic nitrogen" and "organic nitrogen". They also included "inorganic phosphorus" and "organic phosphorus" as distinct parameters measured.

Im a BM wrote:
The distinction between "inorganic" versus "organic" phosphorus is important. Crops cannot take up dissolved organic phosphorus, whereas they do take up inorganic phosphorus. Same story for organic nitrogen versus inorganic nitrogen. And it was impressive to see how large a component of the nitrogen fluxes was in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than ammonium or nitrate.

Im a BM wrote:
Google fun! Try Googling "Northup and dissolved organic nitrogen"

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
This was the response to my very first posts here.

I should thank IBdaMann for tracking down the abstract of such an excellent review article about nutrients in submarine groundwater discharge (SGD). Where terrestrial surface waters enter the ocean, the volume entering as submarine groundwater discharge often exceeds the river surface water flow above. Groundwater enters the sea as horizontal flow through permeable subsurface flow paths, finally reaching an outlet seep below sea level.

Groundwater is not below water.

Im a BM wrote:
I love the fact that this article included DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN among the analysis. Just a quick read of the abstract reveals the distinction being made between "inorganic nitrogen" and "organic nitrogen". They also included "inorganic phosphorus" and "organic phosphorus" as distinct parameters measured.

Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
The distinction between "inorganic" versus "organic" phosphorus is important. Crops cannot take up dissolved organic phosphorus, whereas they do take up inorganic phosphorus. Same story for organic nitrogen versus inorganic nitrogen. And it was impressive to see how large a component of the nitrogen fluxes was in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than ammonium or nitrate.

Phosphorus is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a flux. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Google fun! Try Googling "Northup and dissolved organic nitrogen"

Nitrogen is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Your inability to grasp basic concepts of chemistry,

Im a BM wrote:
such as the difference between inorganic nitrogen and organic nitrogen, makes it pointless to discuss anything with you.

Im a BM wrote:
Something is not something else.

Science is not a chemical.

Try Googling "Northup and dissolved organic nitrogen", and then DEBUNK it!

You should be able to out debate Google any day.

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

Im a BM wrote:
Read "Into the Night's comments" and "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (highlighted in blue) only if you want to see an example of STUPIDITY.

Im a BM wrote:
One key word missing from both essays is "carbonate".

There is no reference whatsoever to carbonate chemistry. The ocean's carbonate system of pH buffering is not acknowledged in any way. The requirement for sufficient bioavailability of carbonate ion in solution for calcium carbonate shell formation is not mentioned in ANY way.

Im a BM wrote:
Incredibly STUPID assertions are made about how "water itself is a buffer for acid". Ignorance of basic chemistry as "carbolic acid" is invoked, and the claim is made that "life is acidic" and the sea would thrive like never before if it were to cross the threshold below pH 7. Pure science denial trying to sound scientific.

Im a BM wrote:
To this day, the ONLY thing they say is:

CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My favorite quote from the abstract of this EXCELLENT scientific paper's abstract is:
"SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters..."

"SGD" stands for submarine groundwater discharge. While this good article's abstract makes no mention of ALKALINITY (it is about nutrients) it IS a great review about the importance of submarine groundwater discharge.

I LOVE the fact that they actually measured DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN in the SGD samples. I take some pride in that one. Water chemists used to ignore the fact that a lot of nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems is NOT in inorganic (mineral) form as ammonium, nitrate, or nitrite. In blackwater rivers and soil waters of tannin-rich ecosystems, MOST of the nitrogen is found as dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than ammonium or nitrate.

It would have been nice if the article ALSO discussed the importance of submarine groundwater discharge for supplying ALKALINITY (as carbonate and bicarbonate ions) to the sea. If the sea were made of pure water in equilibrium with an atmosphere with >420 ppm CO2, the pH of the sea would be 5.6, due to the formation of carbonic acid. SGD may be the single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea to maintain pH above 8.0

For comic relief, one might read the BIZZARE interpretation offered by IBdaMann, sniffing out conspiracies to get funding greater government control.

If IBdaMann had the slightest clue what any of the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" meant, he might have been able to make an intelligent contribution to this thread. But he did not.

And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is, although he tries to invoke evaporation and infinite dilution into a limitless volume of ocean water as plausible mechanisms to ensure that ocean "acidification" was of no concern.

Marine ecosystems DO care how much carbonate ion alkalinity is available in the water. They care a LOT.

Applied biogeochemistry could enhance the alkalinity output in SGD to counter the increased input of carbonic acid due to higher concentrations in the air.

Additional edit: Note that the abstract nearly always distinguishes the identified elements as being in "organic" or "inorganic" form. It covers "inorganic nitrogen" as well as "organic nitrogen". It distinguishes "organic phosphorus" from "inorganic phosphorus". If it DID cover alkalinity, it would have surely distinguished "organic carbon" from "inorganic carbon". About 99% of the sea's alkalinity arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

It is AWESOME that they included organic nitrogen analysis. Yes, "organic nitrogen" is REAL and it is significant. It is also revealing that NITRATE is NOT a significant contributor to nitrogen in SGD. Presumably, most nitrate present gets consumed by nitrate reduction (denitrification or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium), generating carbonate ions in the process.

Nitrate reduction, like sulfate reduction, is an acid neutralizing reaction. Bacteria use nitrate or sulfate as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize organic carbon in the absence of oxygen. Rather than producing carbon dioxide, carbonate ion is the oxidized carbon product.

"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

A sulfur atom is "organic" ONLY if it is attached to an atom of organic carbon.

Atoms of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc., are "organic" if they are attached to atoms of organic carbon. "Inorganic" nitrogen is NOT attached to organic carbon (ammonium, nitrate, nitrogen gas).

So, every element EXCEPT carbon is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on whether or not they attach to an atom of organic carbon.

Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, which typically translates to being attached to oxygen, rather than to hydrogen or carbon. Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, and carbonic acid. Organic carbon is every OTHER carbon atom out there, usually attached to carbon or hydrogen.

Methane is as highly reduced as carbon can get, at the extreme "organic" end of the continuum. One carbon atom attached to four hydrogens. CO2 is as oxidized as carbon can get, "inorganic" to the max. One carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms.

Because real chemists in the real world know what "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" are.

Im a BM wrote:Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, ...

Nope. You should talk to a chemist. Carbon is defined as the chemical element with atomic number 6, consisting of atoms whose nuclei contain exactly six protons.

There is no such thing as an organic carbon atom. Oh, there is no such thing as an inorganic carbon atom either. Really, talk to a chemist; he'll tell you that I'm right.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, ...

Nope. You should talk to a chemist. Carbon is defined as the chemical element with atomic number 6, consisting of atoms whose nuclei contain exactly six protons.

There is no such thing as an organic carbon atom. Oh, there is no such thing as an inorganic carbon atom either. Really, talk to a chemist; he'll tell you that I'm right.

.

Im a BM wrote:
I have been talking to chemists for more than fifty years. 51 years ago I attended my first college level chemistry training, at San Diego State University, in a NSF sponsored program for promising high school science students.

Im a BM wrote:
Here is another Google search you can pretend you never saw.

Google: "Chemistry definition of 'organic carbon'"

Google doesn't say "there is no such thing"

Google says: "In chemistry, organic carbon refers to carbon atoms covalently bonded to other carbon atoms, hydrogen...."

Apparently being "organic" has something to do with which other atoms the carbon is bonded to.

Google will show literally MILLIONS of references to "organic carbon".

Im a BM wrote:
For something that doesn't even exist, scientists give it a LOT of attention.

Im a BM wrote:
Google will also show literally millions of references to "inorganic carbon".

Im a BM wrote:
Chemists understand each other perfectly when they use these terms.

Im a BM wrote:
These "buzzwords" have accepted definitions that scientists all have agreed to.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I have been talking to chemists for more than fifty years. 51 years ago I attended my first college level chemistry training, at San Diego State University, in a NSF sponsored program for promising high school science students.

I doubt you have talked to any chemist. You don't understand any chemistry. I take it your goal is to spread your religion and bullshit to high school students.

Im a BM wrote:
Here is another Google search you can pretend you never saw.

Google: "Chemistry definition of 'organic carbon'"

Google doesn't say "there is no such thing"

Google says: "In chemistry, organic carbon refers to carbon atoms covalently bonded to other carbon atoms, hydrogen...."

Apparently being "organic" has something to do with which other atoms the carbon is bonded to.

Google will show literally MILLIONS of references to "organic carbon".

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Google is not God. Google is not chemistry. Google is not sentient. Google is not scientists. Google is not science.

Im a BM wrote:
For something that doesn't even exist, scientists give it a LOT of attention.

Google is not scientists. Google is not science.

Im a BM wrote:
Google will also show literally millions of references to "inorganic carbon".

Carbon is not inorganic. Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
Chemists understand each other perfectly when they use these terms.

You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Google is not a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
These "buzzwords" have accepted definitions that scientists all have agreed to.

Buzzwords have no definition, Robert. Google is not science. Google is not scientists. Google is not God. Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
I read this and have to concede that I have simply been out geniused.

I really believed that Google is God and Google is scientists and Google is science and Google is sentient..

Good thing you straightened that out!

I have been SO humiliated by the superior knowledge diplayed so clearly...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I read this and have to concede that I have simply been out geniused.

I really believed that Google is God and Google is scientists and Google is science and Google is sentient..

Good thing you straightened that out!

I have been SO humiliated by the superior knowledge diplayed so clearly...

Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
I tried to find Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
It is not clear at all that it is a term used by anyone who is really a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
It is much easier to find proof that the term "organic carbon" is very frequently used by persons who really are scientists.

Im a BM wrote:
It is SO EASY to Google "organic carbon" and discover that Into the Night is FULL OF SHIT about these things.

Im a BM wrote:
His claim that "there is no such thing as 'organic carbon'" PROVES he cannot possibly be a "chemist" of any valid nature.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann knows what would happen if ANYONE dares to fact check with Google. You'll find yourself in a position where you have to look right past the obvious answer before you can finally find the more satisfying result. Stay off Google.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I tried to find Mantra 3.

This Mantra describes a condescending or fake alliance post, which is what you did.

Im a BM wrote:
It is not clear at all that it is a term used by anyone who is really a scientist.

Science isn't a collection of terms.

Im a BM wrote:
It is much easier to find proof that the term "organic carbon" is very frequently used by persons who really are scientists.

Carbon is not organic. Science is not a title. Science isn't even people.

Im a BM wrote:
It is SO EASY to Google "organic carbon" and discover that Into the Night is FULL OF SHIT about these things.

Carbon is not organic. Science is not Google. Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
His claim that "there is no such thing as 'organic carbon'" PROVES he cannot possibly be a "chemist" of any valid nature.

Carbon is not organic. Chemist is not a title. Attempted proof by Stone.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann knows what would happen if ANYONE dares to fact check with Google. You'll find yourself in a position where you have to look right past the obvious answer before you can finally find the more satisfying result. Stay off Google.

Go learn what 'fact' means. There is no such thing as 'fact check'. Google is not God. Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no ROOM for the term "organic carbon" in your tiny, science-challenged mind, so you make it go away.

Im a BM wrote:
But you can't make the term go away from the real world of real scientists and their real textbooks and real research publications.

Im a BM wrote:
You can't find ONE example of such a thing to support YOUR stupid contrarian assertions, so I guess we just have to take your word for it.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no ROOM for the term "organic carbon" in your tiny, science-challenged mind, so you make it go away.

Nothing to 'make go away'. Carbon is not organic. You can't blame your illiteracy on anyone else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
But you can't make the term go away from the real world of real scientists and their real textbooks and real research publications.

True Scotsman fallacy. Go learn what 'real' means, Robert. Science is not a book, research, magazine, journal, website, search engine, or any other 'publication'.

Im a BM wrote:
You can't find ONE example of such a thing to support YOUR stupid contrarian assertions, so I guess we just have to take your word for it.

Mantra 3.

Im a BM wrote:
When Into the Night claims that "Carbon is not organic", he isn't ALWAYS wrong.

Less than half the total carbon on Earth is organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Most carbon on Earth is inorganic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized, and there are only a handful of forms it comes in. Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion account for nearly 100% of all inorganic carbon found on Earth. A complete list would have to include carbon monoxide and many other trace forms of oxidized carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Organic carbon is NOT oxidized, and there are literally thousands of forms. Methane, CH4, is as chemically reduced as carbon can get. Definitions for organic carbon are all about what atom the carbon is bonded to. Carbon bonded to hydrogen or carbon is organic. Carbon bonded to oxygen is not.

Im a BM wrote:
There is a whole field of science called ORGANIC CHEMISTRY. People who go farther with it also study INORGANIC CHEMISTRY.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure that Into the Night will clearly explain why there is "no such thing".

Or maybe he has an alternative definition for what "organic chemistry" means.