Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

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.

Im a BM wrote:
Four years later,...

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:

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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Into the Night 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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Contextomy fallacy. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night 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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Contextomy fallacy. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Wait! It gets BETTER!

This quote is from "Into the Night's comments"

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid... Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

The little YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) in my head says "Carbolic is not a chemical!"

Carbolic acid is very reactive stuff.

Fortunately, it is only present in sea water at undetectable concentrations.

CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

Carbonic acid is only in small quantities in seawater. The equilibrium reaction back and forth between dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid results in only about 1% of the dissolved carbon dioxide is converted to carbonic acid and back again. Another vents CO2 from seawater back to the atmosphere.

Guess why your soda or beer goes flat.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
Carbonate is not a system.
Water itself is a buffer for acid.

sealover wrote:
CO2atm = CO2dissolved + H2O = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3- + H+

sealover wrote:
The multispecies equilibria of the "carbonate system".

sealover wrote:
Every "=" sign represents a separate equilibrium with its unique "K" constant.

sealover wrote:
The first equilibrium between atmospheric (CO2) and dissolved (CO2) is controlled mainly by atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 in the air drives higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in water. Pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. Math formulas use Henry's law and atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to calculate it.
CO2 is not an acid. Henry's law does not have pH in it.
[quote]sealover wrote:
The second equilibrium is between dissolved carbon dioxide and the concentration of carbonic acid formed. The greater the (CO2)dissolved, the greater the (H2CO3) in solution. Less than 1% of dissolved CO2 is in the form of carbonic acid at any given moment.

sealover wrote:
The third equilibrium is between carbonic acid concentration (H2CO3), and concentration of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, in solution. Note that the hydrogen ion (H+) is one of the players in this equilibrium. This one is pH dependent. Higher concentration of H2CO3 would drive higher concentration of HCO3-, unless the concentration of (H+) is too high to allow it. Lower pH will drive CO2 out of solution as H2CO3 forms from bicarbonate ion. Higher pH will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere into the sea, as bicarbonate ion forms from carbonic acid.

sealover wrote:
The fourth equilibrium of the "carbonate system" is between dissolved bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate ions, CO3(2-) in solution. It is also VERY pH dependent. Under more acidic conditions, less bicarbonate gets transformed to carbonate. Conversely, under more alkaline conditions, carbonate dominates the equilibrium, present at higher concentrations than bicarbonate. At sea water pH, there are about 10 bicarbonate ions in solution for every carbonate ion. This delicate balance is pH-dependent. Every additional molecule of carbonic acid that forms in sea water from atmospheric carbon dioxide neutralizes one molecule of carbonate ion.

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

sealover wrote:
But the sea gets new carbonate ions added to it all the time. Most of them are the product of microbial sulfate reduction.

sealover wrote:
Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use the sulfate oxyanion as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation via sulfate reduction is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2). Rather than produce the acidifying "carbonic acid gas" known as carbon dioxide, these anaerobic processes generate CARBONATE ION, with acid neutralizing capacity.

sealover wrote:
So, pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. At least 300 times more "acidic" than sea water.

sealover wrote:
Because sea water has a constant input of exogenous carbonate anions, it maintains pH ABOVE 7, despite the carbonic acid input from the sky.

sealover wrote:
Acidifying the sea to below pH 7, as IBdaMann suggests would enable "life to thrive as never before", would not have any discernable corrosive impact or other direct pH effects. But it would bring the concentration of carbonate ion in solution to virtually zero. Only a handful of marine organisms can make calcium carbonate shell unless carbonate ion is readily available in solution.

sealover wrote:
It would be easy enough to bring a sea water aquarium down to pH 7 and observe which organisms "thrive as never before".

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night mentioned CARBOLIC acid four times in the "Into the Night's comments" thing. Never said ANYTHING about carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, or carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
So, we can be reassured because WATER ITSELF is a buffer for acid and the sea don't need no stinkin' "carbonate system" because YOU just CANNOT acidify "an alkaline". And HE is a "chemist", so he don't need no stinkin' evidence that ANYONE ELSE could double check to see if he is being honest.

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not "credible references"!

Im a BM wrote:
P.S. The fact the Into the Night was oblivious to the fact that he repeatedly wrote "carbolic acid" rather than "carbonic acid" is revealing. People who put more than an hour into the study of water chemistry don't make this mistake.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
CO2atm = CO2dissolved + H2O = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3- + H+

Incorrect reaction. Incorrect notation.

sealover wrote:
The multispecies equilibria of the "carbonate system".

Carbonate is not a species. Carbonate is not a system.

sealover wrote:
Every "=" sign represents a separate equilibrium with its unique "K" constant.

A binomial operator is not a constant.

sealover wrote:
The first equilibrium between atmospheric (CO2) and dissolved (CO2) is controlled mainly by atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 in the air drives higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in water. Pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. Math formulas use Henry's law and atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to calculate it.
CO2 is not an acid. Henry's law does not have pH in it.
[quote]sealover wrote:
The second equilibrium is between dissolved carbon dioxide and the concentration of carbonic acid formed. The greater the (CO2)dissolved, the greater the (H2CO3) in solution. Less than 1% of dissolved CO2 is in the form of carbonic acid at any given moment.

This is part is correct, but the conclusion is based on the incorrect reaction noted earlier.

sealover wrote:
The third equilibrium is between carbonic acid concentration (H2CO3), and concentration of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, in solution. Note that the hydrogen ion (H+) is one of the players in this equilibrium. This one is pH dependent. Higher concentration of H2CO3 would drive higher concentration of HCO3-, unless the concentration of (H+) is too high to allow it. Lower pH will drive CO2 out of solution as H2CO3 forms from bicarbonate ion. Higher pH will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere into the sea, as bicarbonate ion forms from carbonic acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Hydrogen is not an ion.

sealover wrote:
The fourth equilibrium of the "carbonate system" is between dissolved bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate ions, CO3(2-) in solution. It is also VERY pH dependent. Under more acidic conditions, less bicarbonate gets transformed to carbonate. Conversely, under more alkaline conditions, carbonate dominates the equilibrium, present at higher concentrations than bicarbonate. At sea water pH, there are about 10 bicarbonate ions in solution for every carbonate ion. This delicate balance is pH-dependent. Every additional molecule of carbonic acid that forms in sea water from atmospheric carbon dioxide neutralizes one molecule of carbonate ion.

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

Carbonate is not a system. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You still don't even know what pH is.

sealover wrote:
But the sea gets new carbonate ions added to it all the time. Most of them are the product of microbial sulfate reduction.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use the sulfate oxyanion as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation via sulfate reduction is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2). Rather than produce the acidifying "carbonic acid gas" known as carbon dioxide, these anaerobic processes generate CARBONATE ION, with acid neutralizing capacity.

Sulfate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbonic acid is carbon dioxide. Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
So, pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. At least 300 times more "acidic" than sea water.

Carbon dioxide is not an acid. Seawater is not acidic. Base rate fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Because sea water has a constant input of exogenous carbonate anions, it maintains pH ABOVE 7, despite the carbonic acid input from the sky.

Carbonic acid is not in the sky. Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Acidifying the sea to below pH 7, as IBdaMann suggests would enable "life to thrive as never before", would not have any discernable corrosive impact or other direct pH effects. But it would bring the concentration of carbonate ion in solution to virtually zero. Only a handful of marine organisms can make calcium carbonate shell unless carbonate ion is readily available in solution.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
It would be easy enough to bring a sea water aquarium down to pH 7 and observe which organisms "thrive as never before".

There are aquariums that are set to acidic conditions. Shellfish do quite well in them as well as many fish.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night 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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Contextomy fallacy. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Wait! It gets BETTER!

This quote is from "Into the Night's comments"

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid... Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

The little YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) in my head says "Carbolic is not a chemical!"

Carbolic acid is very reactive stuff.

Fortunately, it is only present in sea water at undetectable concentrations.

CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

CO2atm = CO2dissolved + H2O = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3- + H+

The multispecies equilibria of the "carbonate system".

Every "=" sign represents a separate equilibrium with its unique "K" constant.

The first equilibrium between atmospheric (CO2) and dissolved (CO2) is controlled mainly by atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 in the air drives higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in water. Pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. Math formulas use Henry's law and atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to calculate it.

The second equilibrium is between dissolved carbon dioxide and the concentration of carbonic acid formed. The greater the (CO2)dissolved, the greater the (H2CO3) in solution. Less than 1% of dissolved CO2 is in the form of carbonic acid at any given moment.

The third equilibrium is between carbonic acid concentration (H2CO3), and concentration of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, in solution. Note that the hydrogen ion (H+) is one of the players in this equilibrium. This one is pH dependent. Higher concentration of H2CO3 would drive higher concentration of HCO3-, unless the concentration of (H+) is too high to allow it. Lower pH will drive CO2 out of solution as H2CO3 forms from bicarbonate ion. Higher pH will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere into the sea, as bicarbonate ion forms from carbonic acid.

The fourth equilibrium of the "carbonate system" is between dissolved bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate ions, CO3(2-) in solution. It is also VERY pH dependent. Under more acidic conditions, less bicarbonate gets transformed to carbonate. Conversely, under more alkaline conditions, carbonate dominates the equilibrium, present at higher concentrations than bicarbonate. At sea water pH, there are about 10 bicarbonate ions in solution for every carbonate ion. This delicate balance is pH-dependent. Every additional molecule of carbonic acid that forms in sea water from atmospheric carbon dioxide neutralizes one molecule of carbonate ion.

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

But the sea gets new carbonate ions added to it all the time. Most of them are the product of microbial sulfate reduction.

Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use the sulfate oxyanion as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation via sulfate reduction is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2). Rather than produce the acidifying "carbonic acid gas" known as carbon dioxide, these anaerobic processes generate CARBONATE ION, with acid neutralizing capacity.

So, pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. At least 300 times more "acidic" than sea water.

Because sea water has a constant input of exogenous carbonate anions, it maintains pH ABOVE 7, despite the carbonic acid input from the sky.

Acidifying the sea to below pH 7, as IBdaMann suggests would enable "life to thrive as never before", would not have any discernable corrosive impact or other direct pH effects. But it would bring the concentration of carbonate ion in solution to virtually zero. Only a handful of marine organisms can make calcium carbonate shell unless carbonate ion is readily available in solution.

It would be easy enough to bring a sea water aquarium down to pH 7 and observe which organisms "thrive as never before".

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night 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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Contextomy fallacy. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Wait! It gets BETTER!

This quote is from "Into the Night's comments"

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid... Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

The little YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) in my head says "Carbolic is not a chemical!"

Carbolic acid is very reactive stuff.

Fortunately, it is only present in sea water at undetectable concentrations.

CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

CO2atm = CO2dissolved + H2O = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3- + H+

The multispecies equilibria of the "carbonate system".

Every "=" sign represents a separate equilibrium with its unique "K" constant.

The first equilibrium between atmospheric (CO2) and dissolved (CO2) is controlled mainly by atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 in the air drives higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in water. Pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. Math formulas use Henry's law and atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to calculate it.

The second equilibrium is between dissolved carbon dioxide and the concentration of carbonic acid formed. The greater the (CO2)dissolved, the greater the (H2CO3) in solution. Less than 1% of dissolved CO2 is in the form of carbonic acid at any given moment.

The third equilibrium is between carbonic acid concentration (H2CO3), and concentration of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, in solution. Note that the hydrogen ion (H+) is one of the players in this equilibrium. This one is pH dependent. Higher concentration of H2CO3 would drive higher concentration of HCO3-, unless the concentration of (H+) is too high to allow it. Lower pH will drive CO2 out of solution as H2CO3 forms from bicarbonate ion. Higher pH will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere into the sea, as bicarbonate ion forms from carbonic acid.

The fourth equilibrium of the "carbonate system" is between dissolved bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate ions, CO3(2-) in solution. It is also VERY pH dependent. Under more acidic conditions, less bicarbonate gets transformed to carbonate. Conversely, under more alkaline conditions, carbonate dominates the equilibrium, present at higher concentrations than bicarbonate. At sea water pH, there are about 10 bicarbonate ions in solution for every carbonate ion. This delicate balance is pH-dependent. Every additional molecule of carbonic acid that forms in sea water from atmospheric carbon dioxide neutralizes one molecule of carbonate ion.

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

But the sea gets new carbonate ions added to it all the time. Most of them are the product of microbial sulfate reduction.

Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use the sulfate oxyanion as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation via sulfate reduction is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2). Rather than produce the acidifying "carbonic acid gas" known as carbon dioxide, these anaerobic processes generate CARBONATE ION, with acid neutralizing capacity.

So, pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. At least 300 times more "acidic" than sea water.

Because sea water has a constant input of exogenous carbonate anions, it maintains pH ABOVE 7, despite the carbonic acid input from the sky.

Acidifying the sea to below pH 7, as IBdaMann suggests would enable "life to thrive as never before", would not have any discernable corrosive impact or other direct pH effects. But it would bring the concentration of carbonate ion in solution to virtually zero. Only a handful of marine organisms can make calcium carbonate shell unless carbonate ion is readily available in solution.

It would be easy enough to bring a sea water aquarium down to pH 7 and observe which organisms "thrive as never before".

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night 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

ANTI SCIENTIFIC QUOTE OF THE DAY

From "Ocean Acidification Debunked", by IBdaMann.


"5. Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive."

No marine biologist anywhere ever suggested that the SLIGHTLY alkaline pH of the sea, barely one pH unit above neutral, is "hostile to life".

What special adaptation is required to tolerate pH 8.2?

"marine life would thrive like never before" if we just take the sea's pH down below 7?

Is this pro ocean acidification advocacy?

Contextomy fallacy. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Wait! It gets BETTER!

This quote is from "Into the Night's comments"

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid... Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

The little YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) in my head says "Carbolic is not a chemical!"

Carbolic acid is very reactive stuff.

Fortunately, it is only present in sea water at undetectable concentrations.

CARBONIC acid is a very weak mineral acid, whereas carbolic acid is a much stronger ORGANIC acid.

Carbonic acid forms in sea water CO2 + H2O = H2CO3

Carbonic acid dissociates into bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and hydrogen ion, H+.

Bicarbonate ion dissociates into carbonate ion, CO3(2-) and hydrogen ion, H+.

ALL of these species are in chemical equilibrium with each other.

It is this "carbonate system" in sea water that is "a buffer for acid."

CO2atm = CO2dissolved + H2O = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ = CO3- + H+

The multispecies equilibria of the "carbonate system".

Every "=" sign represents a separate equilibrium with its unique "K" constant.

The first equilibrium between atmospheric (CO2) and dissolved (CO2) is controlled mainly by atmospheric concentration. Higher CO2 in the air drives higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in water. Pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. Math formulas use Henry's law and atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 to calculate it.

The second equilibrium is between dissolved carbon dioxide and the concentration of carbonic acid formed. The greater the (CO2)dissolved, the greater the (H2CO3) in solution. Less than 1% of dissolved CO2 is in the form of carbonic acid at any given moment.

The third equilibrium is between carbonic acid concentration (H2CO3), and concentration of the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, in solution. Note that the hydrogen ion (H+) is one of the players in this equilibrium. This one is pH dependent. Higher concentration of H2CO3 would drive higher concentration of HCO3-, unless the concentration of (H+) is too high to allow it. Lower pH will drive CO2 out of solution as H2CO3 forms from bicarbonate ion. Higher pH will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere into the sea, as bicarbonate ion forms from carbonic acid.

The fourth equilibrium of the "carbonate system" is between dissolved bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate ions, CO3(2-) in solution. It is also VERY pH dependent. Under more acidic conditions, less bicarbonate gets transformed to carbonate. Conversely, under more alkaline conditions, carbonate dominates the equilibrium, present at higher concentrations than bicarbonate. At sea water pH, there are about 10 bicarbonate ions in solution for every carbonate ion. This delicate balance is pH-dependent. Every additional molecule of carbonic acid that forms in sea water from atmospheric carbon dioxide neutralizes one molecule of carbonate ion.

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

But the sea gets new carbonate ions added to it all the time. Most of them are the product of microbial sulfate reduction.

Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use the sulfate oxyanion as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of organic carbon oxidation via sulfate reduction is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2). Rather than produce the acidifying "carbonic acid gas" known as carbon dioxide, these anaerobic processes generate CARBONATE ION, with acid neutralizing capacity.

So, pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 420 ppm reaches an equilibrium pH of about 5.6. At least 300 times more "acidic" than sea water.

Because sea water has a constant input of exogenous carbonate anions, it maintains pH ABOVE 7, despite the carbonic acid input from the sky.

Acidifying the sea to below pH 7, as IBdaMann suggests would enable "life to thrive as never before", would not have any discernable corrosive impact or other direct pH effects. But it would bring the concentration of carbonate ion in solution to virtually zero. Only a handful of marine organisms can make calcium carbonate shell unless carbonate ion is readily available in solution.

It would be easy enough to bring a sea water aquarium down to pH 7 and observe which organisms "thrive as never before".

Im a BM wrote:
The "science" of what is NOT. Into the Night needs to write the textbook. But since "science is not a textbook"... Just MAKE SHIT UP as needed.

Im a BM wrote:
As a college chemistry instructor, I was required to say more than "is not" when correcting mistaken comments. I had to tell them what IS the correct information.

Im a BM wrote:
If they wrote out an incorrect "reaction", I would show them the formula for the correct one. If they made a "math error" in a calculation, I would show them where it was and how to calculate it correctly. If they used a chemistry term incorrectly, I would show them the correct use of the term.

Im a BM wrote:

"Incorrect... Incorrect... is not... is not... incorrect reaction... is not... is not... is not... is not... You still don't even know what pH is... is not... is not ... There is no such thing... is not... is not... is not... is not... Carbonic acid is carbon dioxide (WTF?).. is not... is not... is not... fallacy.. is not... is not..."

These are direct quotes, in sequence, of every actual chemistry-related assertion that Into the Night made.

Im a BM wrote:
In no case does the "is not" ever get followed with any kind of explanation of, okay, what IS it in that case?

Im a BM wrote:
Can't even provide the simplest definition for pH, yet pretends to be a "chemist".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The "science" of what is NOT. Into the Night needs to write the textbook. But since "science is not a textbook"... Just MAKE SHIT UP as needed.

Science is not a book. Science is not 'made up shit'.

Im a BM wrote:
As a college chemistry instructor, I was required to say more than "is not" when correcting mistaken comments. I had to tell them what IS the correct information.

You deny and discard chemistry. You can't teach what you don't know.

Im a BM wrote:
If they wrote out an incorrect "reaction", I would show them the formula for the correct one. If they made a "math error" in a calculation, I would show them where it was and how to calculate it correctly. If they used a chemistry term incorrectly, I would show them the correct use of the term.

Chemistry is not 'terms'. Chemistry is not buzzwords. Chemistry is not random letters and numbers. You obviously don't even know chemical notation.

Im a BM wrote:

"Incorrect... Incorrect... is not... is not... incorrect reaction... is not... is not... is not... is not... You still don't even know what pH is... is not... is not ... There is no such thing... is not... is not... is not... is not... Carbonic acid is carbon dioxide (WTF?).. is not... is not... is not... fallacy.. is not... is not..."

These are direct quotes, in sequence, of every actual chemistry-related assertion that Into the Night made.

You aren't talking about chemistry, Robert. You deny chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
In no case does the "is not" ever get followed with any kind of explanation of, okay, what IS it in that case?

There isn't.

Im a BM wrote:
Can't even provide the simplest definition for pH, yet pretends to be a "chemist".

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
What do CHEMISTS think "pH" is?

Im a BM wrote:
I speak for (nearly?) ALL of them when I say pH = -log(H+)

Im a BM wrote:
I double dog dare ANYONE to locate a credible source that identifies another definition for pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe it would help if it's all just words with no math equations.

Im a BM wrote:
The pH of an aqueous solution is the negative value of the logarithm of its molar concentration of hydrogen ion. Any solution with greater than 1.0 M (H+) MUST have pH BELOW zero, because math has its rules.

Im a BM wrote:
BUZZWORDS! NO SUCH THING! YOU DENY SCIENCE! You are not a "chemist".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What do CHEMISTS think "pH" is?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
I speak for (nearly?) ALL of them when I say pH = -log(H+)

I already know that you have no idea what pH is. You don't have to keep trying to prove it.

Im a BM wrote:
I double dog dare ANYONE to locate a credible source that identifies another definition for pH.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe it would help if it's all just words with no math equations.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
The pH of an aqueous solution is the negative value of the logarithm of its molar concentration of hydrogen ion. Any solution with greater than 1.0 M (H+) MUST have pH BELOW zero, because math has its rules.

You don't have to keep proving that you have idea what pH is, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
BUZZWORDS! NO SUCH THING! YOU DENY SCIENCE! You are not a "chemist".

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
CORRECTION: the definition of pH...

To keep it simple, chemists and even chemistry instructors say "concentration" to describe the "molarity" of the hydrogen ion in pH. This is oversimplified.

pH is the negative logarithm of the chemical activity of the hydrogen ion,
H+

I encourage the curious to look up a more complete definition of the term "chemical activity". It is often referred to as the "effective concentration".

For a dilute solution of mineral acid, the activity coefficient = 1, and the chemical activity is the same as the concentration of hydrogen ion.

The distinction between "chemical activity" and "concentration" can make a big difference in some solutions. Ferric iron, for example, has very low chemical activity in solutions with pH >7. When the activity coefficient = 1, this means that only a very low concentration of ferric iron ions can be dissolved in a solution with pH >7. Ferric iron can be complexed by chelating organic acids, such as vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Complexation by organic ligands reduces the chemical activity of the ferric iron ions. A much higher concentration of them can dissolve at pH >7, while maintaining equilibrium chemical activity.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
CORRECTION: the definition of pH...

To keep it simple, chemists and even chemistry instructors say "concentration" to describe the "molarity" of the hydrogen ion in pH. This is oversimplified.

pH is the negative logarithm of the chemical activity of the hydrogen ion,
H+

I encourage the curious to look up a more complete definition of the term "chemical activity". It is often referred to as the "effective concentration".

For a dilute solution of mineral acid, the activity coefficient = 1, and the chemical activity is the same as the concentration of hydrogen ion.

The distinction between "chemical activity" and "concentration" can make a big difference in some solutions. Ferric iron, for example, has very low chemical activity in solutions with pH >7. When the activity coefficient = 1, this means that only a very low concentration of ferric iron ions can be dissolved in a solution with pH >7. Ferric iron can be complexed by chelating organic acids, such as vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Complexation by organic ligands reduces the chemical activity of the ferric iron ions. A much higher concentration of them can dissolve at pH >7, while maintaining equilibrium chemical activity.

I already know you have no idea what pH is, Robert. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, your evasions are clever!

"See, you STILL don't know what pH is. tee hee hee."

Of course, NOBODY will notice that YOU never ONCE say what pH IS.

Your original "RQAA" was the vaguest reference to pH as a "ratio".

Could you at least repeat that one sentence for those of us who didn't see your original "RQAA" assertion whenever you posted it several years ago.

Me and all the chemists say, pH = -log(H+)

IBdaMann even admitted that much, after proving he never studied chemistry by first asserting a liter of sea water was more profoundly affected by one drop of acid for a pH decline, than one liter of pure water with a drop of acid added.

He evolved to claim that only a magical acid could have pH 0.0

He went on to try to pretend he taught ME all this with an effed up definition of pH that he later had to recant. "pH = -ln(H+)" - IBdaMann
He calculated a below zero value for pH of a 1.5 M nitric acid solution, but it was the WRONG below zero value.

Ultimately, IBdaMann DID admit that pH = -log(H+), and that acid solutions with >1.0 M (H+) have pH below zero.

Unlike Into the Night, IBdaMann is not 100% unteachable.

So Google, the dominant senior troll, and myself all agree that pH = -log(H+)

("You don't have to prove again to ME that you don't know what pH is, tee hee hee")

Chemistry Troll says "NO, it's NOT!"

But what pH IS is a big SECRET that only Into the Night knows, and the only way to find it is to dig through 23,000 posts and figure out where he ever defined it, as he seems to claim with "RQAA".

Hey, instead of just saying "RQAA", at least tell me what YEAR you posted the correct definition of pH?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, your evasions are clever!

"See, you STILL don't know what pH is. tee hee hee."

Of course, NOBODY will notice that YOU never ONCE say what pH IS.

Your original "RQAA" was the vaguest reference to pH as a "ratio".

Could you at least repeat that one sentence for those of us who didn't see your original "RQAA" assertion whenever you posted it several years ago.

Me and all the chemists say, pH = -log(H+)

IBdaMann even admitted that much, after proving he never studied chemistry by first asserting a liter of sea water was more profoundly affected by one drop of acid for a pH decline, than one liter of pure water with a drop of acid added.

He evolved to claim that only a magical acid could have pH 0.0

He went on to try to pretend he taught ME all this with an effed up definition of pH that he later had to recant. "pH = -ln(H+)" - IBdaMann
He calculated a below zero value for pH of a 1.5 M nitric acid solution, but it was the WRONG below zero value.

Ultimately, IBdaMann DID admit that pH = -log(H+), and that acid solutions with >1.0 M (H+) have pH below zero.

Unlike Into the Night, IBdaMann is not 100% unteachable.

So Google, the dominant senior troll, and myself all agree that pH = -log(H+)

("You don't have to prove again to ME that you don't know what pH is, tee hee hee")

Chemistry Troll says "NO, it's NOT!"

But what pH IS is a big SECRET that only Into the Night knows, and the only way to find it is to dig through 23,000 posts and figure out where he ever defined it, as he seems to claim with "RQAA".

Hey, instead of just saying "RQAA", at least tell me what YEAR you posted the correct definition of pH?

Substituting GoogleAI for your brain is a bad idea, Robert. There are already enough zombies.

RQAA

sealover wrote:
If I take the time to do a keyword search within this website for "pH", I will find every time you ever posted the term and possibly find the secret post where you actually DEFINED YOUR TERMS.

Could you narrow it down and at least tell me what YEAR you revealed the secret definition of pH which you now refuse to ever repeat?

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
If I take the time to do a keyword search within this website for "pH", I will find every time you ever posted the term and possibly find the secret post where you actually DEFINED YOUR TERMS.

Could you narrow it down and at least tell me what YEAR you revealed the secret definition of pH which you now refuse to ever repeat?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
If I take the time to do a keyword search within this website for "pH", I will find every time you ever posted the term and possibly find the secret post where you actually DEFINED YOUR TERMS.

Could you narrow it down and at least tell me what YEAR you revealed the secret definition of pH which you now refuse to ever repeat?

RQAA

If I had only studied the local language before posting here...

When they all came at me with that "Define your terms!" shit, all I had to do was write "RQAA". Could have saved a lot of time!

All right, you want to know what is the unambiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate ANY CONCEIVABLE laws of thermodynamics?

RQAA

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
If I take the time to do a keyword search within this website for "pH", I will find every time you ever posted the term and possibly find the secret post where you actually DEFINED YOUR TERMS.

Could you narrow it down and at least tell me what YEAR you revealed the secret definition of pH which you now refuse to ever repeat?

RQAA

If I had only studied the local language before posting here...

When they all came at me with that "Define your terms!" shit, all I had to do was write "RQAA". Could have saved a lot of time!

All right, you want to know what is the unambiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate ANY CONCEIVABLE laws of thermodynamics?

RQAA

Except you never were able to define what is 'changing' in climate. I certainly gave you more than a fair chance. You failed just all the rest. Climate cannot change.

You also have already denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, Henry's law, and Black's law.

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
If I take the time to do a keyword search within this website for "pH", I will find every time you ever posted the term and possibly find the secret post where you actually DEFINED YOUR TERMS.

Could you narrow it down and at least tell me what YEAR you revealed the secret definition of pH which you now refuse to ever repeat?

RQAA

If I had only studied the local language before posting here...

When they all came at me with that "Define your terms!" shit, all I had to do was write "RQAA". Could have saved a lot of time!

All right, you want to know what is the unambiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate ANY CONCEIVABLE laws of thermodynamics?

RQAA

Except you never were able to define what is 'changing' in climate. I certainly gave you more than a fair chance. You failed just all the rest. Climate cannot change.

You also have already denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, Henry's law, and Black's law.

RQAA, YARP.

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

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.

sealover wrote:
And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is,

sealover wrote:
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.

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

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

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

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

sealover wrote:
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).

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

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

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

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is,

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

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

Carbonate is not a chemical Alkalinity is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.

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

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonic acid is not in the air.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrogen is not inorganic. Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Phosphorus is not inorganic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Buzzwords is not a reaction. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not oxygen.

sealover wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

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

Sulfur is not organic. Carbon is not organic.

sealover wrote:
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).

Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not inorganic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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 is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. No element is organic. No element is inorganic.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Methane is a compound. Carbon is not methane. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Carbon is not inorganic.

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

Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. You deny and discard chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - Into the Night

Well, NOW he's gunning for the Nobel Prize in ECOLOGY.

If Into the Night is the first scientist to publish proof that there is NO SUCH THING as "ecosystem", it will revolutionize the field of ecology.

And the ONLY thing any scientist needs to know about the whole ocean "acidification" controversy is that "You can't acidify an alkaline".

I have been unable to find any definition for "alkaline" that is a NOUN, but it's probably in the same SECRET BIBLE OF SCIENCE where Into the Night gets his definition for basic chemistry terms such as "pH". NOT = -log(H+)! Heck NO! It's some kind of mystery "ratio", and "water itself is a buffer for acid".

And we will ALL be SO MUCH SMARTER after Into the Night teaches us about everything that is NOT in science. Because he is a "chemist"!

PARADIGM-SHIFTING DISCOVERY OF THE DAY!

"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - The "Chemistry" Troll

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is,

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

You cannot acidify an alkaline.

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

Carbonate is not a chemical Alkalinity is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.

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

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonic acid is not in the air.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrogen is not inorganic. Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Phosphorus is not inorganic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Buzzwords is not a reaction. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not oxygen.

sealover wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

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

Sulfur is not organic. Carbon is not organic.

sealover wrote:
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).

Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not inorganic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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 is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. No element is organic. No element is inorganic.

sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
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.

Methane is a compound. Carbon is not methane. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Carbon is not inorganic.

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

Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. You deny and discard chemistry.

sealover wrote:
Eugene Odum coined the term "ecosystem" more than half a century ago. In the spring of 1997, I got to spend an hour alone with Eugene Odum in his office at the University of Georgia. He was delighted with my presentation. I had been invited there to speak after the paper in NATURE got so much attention. He and I had an excellent discussion with him that went way over the time originally scheduled to last. All this is to say that there IS such a thing as "ecosystem". Eugene Odum was a genius. In contrast, Into the Night is just a scientifically illiterate TROLL.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - Into the Night

Well, NOW he's gunning for the Nobel Prize in ECOLOGY.

sealover wrote:
If Into the Night is the first scientist to publish proof that there is NO SUCH THING as "ecosystem", it will revolutionize the field of ecology.

sealover wrote:
And the ONLY thing any scientist needs to know about the whole ocean "acidification" controversy is that "You can't acidify an alkaline".

sealover wrote:
I have been unable to find any definition for "alkaline" that is a NOUN, but it's probably in the same SECRET BIBLE OF SCIENCE where Into the Night gets his definition for basic chemistry terms such as "pH". NOT = -log(H+)! Heck NO! It's some kind of mystery "ratio", and "water itself is a buffer for acid".

sealover wrote:
And we will ALL be SO MUCH SMARTER after Into the Night teaches us about everything that is NOT in science. Because he is a "chemist"!
I am an chemist, Robert.
[quote]sealover wrote:
PARADIGM-SHIFTING DISCOVERY OF THE DAY!

"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - The "Chemistry" Troll

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Eugene Odum coined the term "ecosystem" more than half a century ago. In the spring of 1997, I got to spend an hour alone with Eugene Odum in his office at the University of Georgia. He was delighted with my presentation. I had been invited there to speak after the paper in NATURE got so much attention. He and I had an excellent discussion with him that went way over the time originally scheduled to last. All this is to say that there IS such a thing as "ecosystem". Eugene Odum was a genius. In contrast, Into the Night is just a scientifically illiterate TROLL.

Define 'ecosystem', Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - Into the Night

Well, NOW he's gunning for the Nobel Prize in ECOLOGY.

There is no Nobel Prize for ecology, Robert.

sealover wrote:
If Into the Night is the first scientist to publish proof that there is NO SUCH THING as "ecosystem", it will revolutionize the field of ecology.

Ecology is not a field, Robert. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'. Buzzword fallacies.

sealover wrote:
And the ONLY thing any scientist needs to know about the whole ocean "acidification" controversy is that "You can't acidify an alkaline".

You cannot acidify an alkaline. There is no 'controversy'. You just want ignore chemistry again.

sealover wrote:
I have been unable to find any definition for "alkaline" that is a NOUN, but it's probably in the same SECRET BIBLE OF SCIENCE where Into the Night gets his definition for basic chemistry terms such as "pH". NOT = -log(H+)! Heck NO! It's some kind of mystery "ratio", and "water itself is a buffer for acid".

Water IS a buffer for acid, Robert. I already know you have no idea what pH is.

sealover wrote:
And we will ALL be SO MUCH SMARTER after Into the Night teaches us about everything that is NOT in science. Because he is a "chemist"!
I am an chemist, Robert.
[quote]sealover wrote:
PARADIGM-SHIFTING DISCOVERY OF THE DAY!

"There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'." - The "Chemistry" Troll

...annnnnnnnd ther'e the usual 'troll' Magick Word.

Im a BM wrote:

Are you a reflexive naysayer, or just a knee-jerk contrarian?

WHY is it "not possible" for pH to be below 7?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Are you a reflexive naysayer, or just a knee-jerk contrarian?

WHY is it "not possible" for pH to be below 7?

It is. I already know you have no idea what pH means. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Are you a reflexive naysayer, or just a knee-jerk contrarian?

WHY is it "not possible" for pH to be below 7?

It is. I already know you have no idea what pH means. You don't have to keep proving it.

Because you CANNOT acidify "an alkaline"! pH cannot go below 7.

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention.

I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll.

Im a BM wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention.

I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll.

What was so silly that the little girl is laughing at?

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

IBdaMann responded by correcting the "mistake"

"If you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0), and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention.

I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll.

What was so silly that the little girl is laughing at?

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

IBdaMann responded by correcting the "mistake"

"If you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0), and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

You ARE sealover, Robert. You're the only one with socks here.

I already know you don't any thing about acids or alkalines. You don't have to prove it.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You ARE sealover, Robert. You're the only one with socks here.

I already know you don't any thing about acids or alkalines. You don't have to prove it.

So, you've got these two scientifically illiterate trolls who, literally, don't even know what pH or buffering IS.

Im a BM wrote:
But they sure have a LOT to say as experts in science, and they just never seem to stop trolling.

Im a BM wrote:
You cannot acidify an alkaline, apparently.

Im a BM wrote:
And it turns out that carbonate is NOT a chemical, precisely, so "carbonate" is meaningless in discussion of ocean acidification. Carbonate chemistry doesn't exist because carbonate is not a chemical, and has no chemical behavior to speak of.

Im a BM wrote:
I remain true to my RELIGIOUS FAITH in the firm belief that sulfate CAN be reduced, and their IS "such a thing" as the inorganic carbon product of anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon. I believe, I believe, I believe that the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering is REAL. With blind faith I cling to the belief in submarine groundwater discharge as the vehicle of transport that provides most of the carbonate ions entering the sea.

Im a BM wrote:
I worship a false god of biogeochemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Somebody needs to remind me that I am a scientifically illiterate moron.

Im a BM wrote:
No, worse than that. I'm deceptively advancing an EVIL agenda, fraudulently presenting myself as a "scientist", perhaps just totally gullible as a Marxist puppet, or one of the most evil of knowing conspirators...

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann and Into the Night, providing quality assurance at climate-debate.com