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.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Carbon is not organic.

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

Carbon is not inorganic.

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.

Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not carbonic acid. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not carbon monoxide.

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.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon has only one form. Carbon is not methane. Carbon is not 'reduced'. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not hydrogen.

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

You aren't discussing science or 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.

You aren't discussing organic chemistry.

Science isn't buzzwords. Chemistry isn't buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
Google to the rescue!

Here is the precise language for the inquiry:

"What is the definition of 'organic carbon' in chemistry?"

And Google says: "Organic carbon is carbon bonded to hydrogen.." and it goes on to list other elements such as nitrogen and carbon, that carbon can bond to to be "organic".

For contrast, we'll ask Google "What is the definition of 'inorganic' carbon in chemistry?"

Im a BM wrote:
To that Google says: "Inorganic carbon is carbon not bound to hydrogen, typically found in simple, non-living compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO3-)."

Im a BM wrote:
Google's answer is not incorrect, but it is not how I was taught the definition, nor how I taught it as a chemistry instructor.

Im a BM wrote:
The most important distinction is that organic carbon is in a chemically "reduced" state, and inorganic carbon is "oxidized". Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon (e.g. combustion). Energy is consumed and must be supplied to drive the reaction when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon (e.g. photosynthesis).

Im a BM wrote:
A list that covers 99% of all the organic carbon on Earth would be thousands of chemicals long. A list that covers 99% of all the inorganic carbon on Earth is just four chemicals long. Because carbon dioxide IS a chemical, as is carbonic acid, and as are the bicarbonate ion and the carbonate ion.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Google to the rescue!

Here is the precise language for the inquiry:

"What is the definition of 'organic carbon' in chemistry?"

And Google says: "Organic carbon is carbon bonded to hydrogen.." and it goes on to list other elements such as nitrogen and carbon, that carbon can bond to to be "organic".

For contrast, we'll ask Google "What is the definition of 'inorganic' carbon in chemistry?"

You are not Google. Google is not God. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
To that Google says: "Inorganic carbon is carbon not bound to hydrogen, typically found in simple, non-living compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3-), and carbonate (CO3-)."

Google is not sentient. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not carbonic acid. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Google's answer is not incorrect, but it is not how I was taught the definition, nor how I taught it as a chemistry instructor.

Illiteracy: Double negative. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Google does not define any word. You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
The most important distinction is that organic carbon is in a chemically "reduced" state, and inorganic carbon is "oxidized". Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon (e.g. combustion). Energy is consumed and must be supplied to drive the reaction when inorganic carbon is reduced to organic carbon (e.g. photosynthesis).

Carbon is not organic. You cannot reduce it. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not combustion. Carbon is not photosynthesis.

Im a BM wrote:
A list that covers 99% of all the organic carbon on Earth would be thousands of chemicals long. A list that covers 99% of all the inorganic carbon on Earth is just four chemicals long. Because carbon dioxide IS a chemical, as is carbonic acid, and as are the bicarbonate ion and the carbonate ion.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is only one thing. Carbon is not carbonic acid. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Google can't save you. It is not God. It is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
This one is impressive!

The vast majority of the sentences are either "(something) is not (something)" or "You are not (something)"

The term "is not" appears 22 times in this post.

"Is not" is not much science to know.

It is just contrarianism.

It is possible that sometime in the history of science an important scientist published something where the most important conclusion was "is not" something. Even the original scientific "revolutionaries" had to have something more than "is not". It would have been meaningless for them to only assert that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. That would have been denial, not science. That would have won no argument of any kind because they weren't making one with the unsupported contrarian denial.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
This one is impressive!

The vast majority of the sentences are either "(something) is not (something)" or "You are not (something)"

The term "is not" appears 22 times in this post.

"Is not" is not much science to know.

It is just contrarianism.

It is possible that sometime in the history of science an important scientist published something where the most important conclusion was "is not" something. Even the original scientific "revolutionaries" had to have something more than "is not". It would have been meaningless for them to only assert that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe. That would have been denial, not science. That would have won no argument of any kind because they weren't making one with the unsupported contrarian denial.

You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Robert.
Science is not a revolution, war, or political conflict.
Looks like you ignore Galileo as well.

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you honestly believe you ARE a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you honestly believe that words can only mean what you allow them to mean.

Im a BM wrote:
Other people, scientists in particular, DO know how to look up the definitions for scientific terms.

Im a BM wrote:
One brief inquiry can transform a "meaningless buzzword" into a useful vocabulary term that can be used for effective communication of complex concepts.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't pretend to understand what makes ITN tick, but I DO know how to find definitions for scientific terms.

Im a BM wrote:
I take away the terrifying power of "buzzwords" by learning what they mean.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you honestly believe you ARE a "chemist".

I am.

Im a BM wrote:
I think that you honestly believe that words can only mean what you allow them to mean.

I didn't create the English language, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Other people, scientists in particular, DO know how to look up the definitions for scientific terms.

Science isn't 'terms'.

Im a BM wrote:
One brief inquiry can transform a "meaningless buzzword" into a useful vocabulary term that can be used for effective communication of complex concepts.

Science isn't buzzwords. A buzzword is not a useful vocabulary or a term. Buzzwords have no meaning. You can't communicate with them.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't pretend to understand what makes ITN tick, but I DO know how to find definitions for scientific terms.

Science isn't 'terms' or buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
I take away the terrifying power of "buzzwords" by learning what they mean.

Buzzwords have no meaning.

Im a BM wrote:
Given how many hundreds of times you have written the exact same sentence about it, why are you unwilling to invest 30 seconds for a reality check?

Im a BM wrote:
Because you are TERRIFIED by the power of "buzzwords".

Im a BM wrote:
It would tear your world apart to discover how little you know, and it would take you too long to learn enough to fill the terrifying void.

Im a BM wrote:
Best you just continue to take comfort in your religion. A devoted follower of the CULT of THERMODENIAL. Even though your cult leader ditched you.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Given how many hundreds of times you have written the exact same sentence about it, why are you unwilling to invest 30 seconds for a reality check?

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'real' means and how it's defined.

Im a BM wrote:
Because you are TERRIFIED by the power of "buzzwords".

Buzzwords have no power. Buzzwords have no meaning.

Im a BM wrote:
It would tear your world apart to discover how little you know, and it would take you too long to learn enough to fill the terrifying void.

Buzzwords are not knowledge.

Im a BM wrote:
Best you just continue to take comfort in your religion. A devoted follower of the CULT of THERMODENIAL. Even though your cult leader ditched you.

Go learn what 'cult' means. Thermodenial is not a word.

Im a BM wrote:
I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go.

So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go.

So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate".

Nah. I've already seen your math errors. You don't need to show them to me again.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps I never explained this before.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea).

Im a BM wrote:
The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution.

Im a BM wrote:
The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1.

Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0.
The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0.

Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH?
The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible.

Im a BM wrote:
"Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3.

Im a BM wrote:
The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in.

Im a BM wrote:
The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation.

Im a BM wrote:
But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid.
...
the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote:
More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development.

Im a BM wrote:
The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go.

So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate".

Nah. I've already seen your math errors. You don't need to show them to me again.

Perhaps I never explained this before.

Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings.

Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea).

The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution.

The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1.

Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0.
The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0.

Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH?
The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible.

"Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3.

CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3-
HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-)

The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in.

The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation.

But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid.

CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions.

I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" "It is not possible for pH to be below zero" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "There is no coral bleaching" "You deny science" "You are not a chemist"

More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development.

The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others.

I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change.

Im a BM wrote:
Simple question for Google, and ANYONE can do this at home to see that it is REPRODUCIBLE (as per the Scientific Method)

Im a BM wrote:
Google Inquiry: "What is the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid?"

Google isn't afraid of buzzwords!

"AI Overview" that Google shows in upper left says:

"The pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid (HNO3) is approximately -0.30

STEP-BY-STEP Calculation

1. Identify the nature of the acid..."

And Google goes on to display how scientists are able to calculate the pH of a solution with pH BELOW ZERO.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Simple question for Google, and ANYONE can do this at home to see that it is REPRODUCIBLE (as per the Scientific Method)

Science is not a method or procedure. Google is not God. Google is not science.

Im a BM wrote:
Google Inquiry: "What is the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid?"

Google isn't afraid of buzzwords!

"AI Overview" that Google shows in upper left says:

"The pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid (HNO3) is approximately -0.30

STEP-BY-STEP Calculation

1. Identify the nature of the acid..."

And Google goes on to display how scientists are able to calculate the pH of a solution with pH BELOW ZERO.

Google is not sentient. Google is not god. It is not possible to have a negative pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Whatever you say, because you are a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight.

1 There is no such thing as "biogeochemistry"

Im a BM wrote:
2. The journal where my widely cited paper was published, Biogeochemistry, is about a field of science that does not exist.

Im a BM wrote:
3. The professional title that Google attributes to me, biogeochemist, is something that does not exist.

Im a BM wrote:
4. All the people who identify me as a "chemist" are mistaken.

Im a BM wrote:
5. Your understanding of chemistry is far superior to my own.

Im a BM wrote:
additional edit:

Please reveal the SECRET source of your chemistry knowledge.

You assert that it is "not possible" for pH to be below zero.

There must be one credible chemist you can cite to prove it. Such a fundamental point in chemistry would surely have at least one FAMOUS chemist with a landmark paper or book you could cite. Or you could point me to where ANY basic chemistry textbook agrees with your assertion.

Im a BM wrote:
"Science is not a source" "Science is not a citation"

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Whatever you say, because you are a "chemist".

Illiteracy: Extra quoting.

Im a BM wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight.

1 There is no such thing as "biogeochemistry"

This is correct.

Im a BM wrote:
2. The journal where my widely cited paper was published, Biogeochemistry, is about a field of science that does not exist.

Science isn't a journal, paper, magazine, website, or search engine. Biogeochemistry is a buzzword. It is not a field of science.

Im a BM wrote:
3. The professional title that Google attributes to me, biogeochemist, is something that does not exist.

Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
4. All the people who identify me as a "chemist" are mistaken.

What people? You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
5. Your understanding of chemistry is far superior to my own.

Not difficult for that!

Im a BM wrote:
additional edit:

Please reveal the SECRET source of your chemistry knowledge.

You assert that it is "not possible" for pH to be below zero.

There must be one credible chemist you can cite to prove it. Such a fundamental point in chemistry would surely have at least one FAMOUS chemist with a landmark paper or book you could cite. Or you could point me to where ANY basic chemistry textbook agrees with your assertion.

Chemistry is not fame. Chemistry is not a paper, book, website, or search engine.

Im a BM wrote:
"Science is not a source" "Science is not a citation"

This is correct.

Im a BM wrote:
So, you continue to keep your personal definition for pH a SECRET.

Im a BM wrote:
At least you're not insisting that "there is no such thing as 'pH'"

The closest you ever came to offering a definition was to say pH is a "ratio", but you never showed any math for it.

Im a BM wrote:
So clever, you come back with, "See, you STILL don't know what pH is."

Im a BM wrote:
Presumably, a competent chemist would know how to explain WHY pH "cannot" be below zero. You would have to show some math. You would have to use more than one word to define the "ratio".

Im a BM wrote:
Of course you can't do it.

Im a BM wrote:
I keep showing you the same definition and math for pH that real chemists use.

Im a BM wrote:
You could follow his example and come back and pretend that YOU taught ME the correct definition for pH, which clearly explains why an acid with greater than 1.0 M concentration of hydrogen ion HAS to have pH below zero.

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.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
When coastal wetlands are drained for agriculture, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Aerobic oxidation of pyrite by bacteria generates sulfuric acid. In the undisturbed state, the wetland was a source of alkalinity for the sea. After being drained, the wetland exports acidity.

This sulfuric acid input is above and beyond the carbonic acid input from carbon dioxide that is responsible for depleting the ocean's alkalinity. Improved management can dramatically reduce the export of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter from coastal wetlands.

I'll see if anyone is interested in the discussion before I post any more.

Coastal wetlands aren't drained for agriculture. They are swamps. There is nowhere for water to drain to (except a slow flow to the sea, eventually).

If you remove the vegetation from a swamp, it will return in just a few years. That's why it's not used for agriculture. It's too wet and too useless to plant anything (a few have tried rice, but with limited success).

One other swamp crop is balsa wood. This stuff can be 'farmed', and it's light enough you can almost just haul off with a whole tree like Paul Bunyan.

The amount of sulfur that actually becomes sulfuric acid is really very tiny. It can be a LOT more and still not make any significant change in the pH of oceans. You are ignoring a concept in chemistry called 'buffering'. You should probably spend more time learning the chemistry of acid-base reactions.

So you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Coastal wetlands include river deltas.

Sometimes. So?

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

No, it's still a swamp.

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

They are still swamps too.

sealover wrote:
The amount of sulfur oxidized to sulfuric acid is ENORMOUS.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

sealover wrote:
Literally gigatons of buried pyrite in drained wetland soils was oxidized to sulfuric acid as they formed what are known as "acid sulfate" soils.

There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.

No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.

sealover wrote:
Right now, the biggest crop for which more coastal wetland is being drained is oil palm.

Where is that? I suspect you are making shit up again.

sealover wrote:
Once the waterlogged peat is exposed to oxygen, the carbon dioxide emissions from these areas rivals that of fossil fuel combustion.

Zero then. Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. What's wrong with carbon dioxide?

sealover wrote:
Rather than discharge alkalinity in groundwater flows,

Alkalinity is not a discharge. Groundwater is not a flow.

sealover wrote:
these areas export sulfuric-acid-enriched surface water to the sea.

Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

sealover wrote:
The concept of "buffering" is an important one.

One that you fail to consider.

sealover wrote:
If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.

Nope.

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

It won't budge at all.

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

The sea is already alkaline. What's to restore?

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

WRONG. Alkaline is NOT neutral.

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

Pure water is not alkaline. It is not acid either. It has a pH of 7.

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

So?

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

Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.

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

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

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

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

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

There is no such thing as 'bioavailability'. Buzzword fallacy. An ion is not a biology anything.

Im a BM wrote:
Four years later, still entrenched in denial,

Im a BM wrote:
still unwilling to even LOOK at ANY scientific literature written by any credible scientists.

Im a BM wrote:
Just buzzwords and gibber babble that couldn't possibly mean anything.

Im a BM wrote:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING! (go away, scary words that I don't understand)

Im a BM wrote:
Don't forget, "it is NOT POSSIBLE to measure the pH of the oceans"

Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad we got THAT straightened out.

Im a BM wrote:
And now I know that "the pH won't budge at all" if I add a drop of concentrated acid to a liter of sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
That ALONE is PROOF that ocean acidification is physically impossible.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
When coastal wetlands are drained for agriculture, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Aerobic oxidation of pyrite by bacteria generates sulfuric acid. In the undisturbed state, the wetland was a source of alkalinity for the sea. After being drained, the wetland exports acidity.

This sulfuric acid input is above and beyond the carbonic acid input from carbon dioxide that is responsible for depleting the ocean's alkalinity. Improved management can dramatically reduce the export of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter from coastal wetlands.

I'll see if anyone is interested in the discussion before I post any more.

Coastal wetlands aren't drained for agriculture. They are swamps. There is nowhere for water to drain to (except a slow flow to the sea, eventually).

If you remove the vegetation from a swamp, it will return in just a few years. That's why it's not used for agriculture. It's too wet and too useless to plant anything (a few have tried rice, but with limited success).

One other swamp crop is balsa wood. This stuff can be 'farmed', and it's light enough you can almost just haul off with a whole tree like Paul Bunyan.

The amount of sulfur that actually becomes sulfuric acid is really very tiny. It can be a LOT more and still not make any significant change in the pH of oceans. You are ignoring a concept in chemistry called 'buffering'. You should probably spend more time learning the chemistry of acid-base reactions.

So you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Coastal wetlands include river deltas.

Sometimes. So?

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

No, it's still a swamp.

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

They are still swamps too.

sealover wrote:
The amount of sulfur oxidized to sulfuric acid is ENORMOUS.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

sealover wrote:
Literally gigatons of buried pyrite in drained wetland soils was oxidized to sulfuric acid as they formed what are known as "acid sulfate" soils.

There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.

No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.

sealover wrote:
Right now, the biggest crop for which more coastal wetland is being drained is oil palm.

Where is that? I suspect you are making shit up again.

sealover wrote:
Once the waterlogged peat is exposed to oxygen, the carbon dioxide emissions from these areas rivals that of fossil fuel combustion.

Zero then. Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. What's wrong with carbon dioxide?

sealover wrote:
Rather than discharge alkalinity in groundwater flows,

Alkalinity is not a discharge. Groundwater is not a flow.

sealover wrote:
these areas export sulfuric-acid-enriched surface water to the sea.

Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

sealover wrote:
The concept of "buffering" is an important one.

One that you fail to consider.

sealover wrote:
If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.

Nope.

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

It won't budge at all.

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

The sea is already alkaline. What's to restore?

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

WRONG. Alkaline is NOT neutral.

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

Pure water is not alkaline. It is not acid either. It has a pH of 7.

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

So?

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

Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.

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

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

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

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

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

There is no such thing as 'bioavailability'. Buzzword fallacy. An ion is not a biology anything.