Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:The question is, what are the units used to report it?

To a scientist:

pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]

To a software engineer:

double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium)
}

To IBDaMann:

Peanut butter has a pH of 6.3, making my chicken acidic.

Im a BM wrote:
The "skeptics" at Facebook versus the trolls at climate-debate.com

I actually got a lot of useful information by beginning to post at Facebook about a year ago. The "skeptics" at Facebook know how to do more than just repeat "You cannot acidify an alkaline" a thousand times. They actually post links to articles that they distort as supporting their "scientific" position.

Im a BM wrote:
Just yesterday was a GREAT one. A magazine article showing how crabs, shrimp, and lobster are actually making THICKER SHELLS with more CaCO3 in response to ocean acidification. Rather than deny the chemistry and pretend it doesn't exist, they EMBRACED it for purposes of distortion.

Im a BM wrote:
But, with the exception of some calcifying plankton, everyone ELSE in the sea uses CARBONATE IONS to make their CaCO3 shell. Hard to get enough of it.

Im a BM wrote:
Acid plus carbonate ion turns it into bicarbonate ion, or:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted bad math and whining...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The "skeptics" at Facebook versus the trolls at climate-debate.com

I actually got a lot of useful information by beginning to post at Facebook about a year ago. The "skeptics" at Facebook know how to do more than just repeat "You cannot acidify an alkaline" a thousand times. They actually post links to articles that they distort as supporting their "scientific" position.

This isn't Facebook, Robert.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. I don't care what Facebook says. Science is not Facebook or any other website.

Im a BM wrote:
Just yesterday was a GREAT one. A magazine article showing how crabs, shrimp, and lobster are actually making THICKER SHELLS with more CaCO3 in response to ocean acidification. Rather than deny the chemistry and pretend it doesn't exist, they EMBRACED it for purposes of distortion.

You cannot acidify an alkaline. It is not possible to measure the thickness of the ocean's crustaceans.

Im a BM wrote:
But, with the exception of some calcifying plankton, everyone ELSE in the sea uses CARBONATE IONS to make their CaCO3 shell. Hard to get enough of it.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Calcium carbonate is.

Im a BM wrote:
Acid plus carbonate ion turns it into bicarbonate ion, or:

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted bad math and whining...

Irrelevance fallacy. Whining is completely pointless, Robert. So is repeating your bad math.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
In discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, the term "carbonate" virtually always refers to the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), the divalent oxyanion that is so essential for CaCO3 shell formation and pH buffering in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, "bicarbonate" virtually always refers to the BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-. This monovalent oxyanion is not the same as carbonate.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to call bicarbonate or carbonate a "chemical" in order for them to be VERY important to marine biology and seawater chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Insisting that bicarbonate or carbonate is NOT a "chemical" does not negate in ANY WAY what these oxyanions do in sea water chemical equilibria, pH buffering, or marine biology.

Im a BM wrote:
It just proves you never studied chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
In discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, the term "carbonate" virtually always refers to the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), the divalent oxyanion that is so essential for CaCO3 shell formation and pH buffering in sea water.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, "bicarbonate" virtually always refers to the BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-. This monovalent oxyanion is not the same as carbonate.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to call bicarbonate or carbonate a "chemical" in order for them to be VERY important to marine biology and seawater chemistry.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Seawater is not chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Insisting that bicarbonate or carbonate is NOT a "chemical" does not negate in ANY WAY what these oxyanions do in sea water chemical equilibria, pH buffering, or marine biology.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Sea water is not chemical equilibria.
Water is a buffer.
Marine biology is not made of buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
It just proves you never studied chemistry.

Inversion fallacy.

You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You deny Black's law.
You deny Henyr's law.
You deny statistical mathematics.
You deny random number mathematics.
You deny algebra.
You don't even know what 'climate', 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'term', or even 'chemistry' even means.

Im a BM wrote:...deleted whining....

Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that 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 the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.

Do the math.

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

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

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

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

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

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

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

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

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

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

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

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?

Or you could just stop trolling my threads.

They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.

It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.

I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.

Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.

You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.

sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.

Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...

I will call this Argument 1.

Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.

sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.

Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.

He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.

sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.

I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.

sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.

You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.

sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.

Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.

The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.

You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.

Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.

'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.

Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.

You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.

Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).

Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.

People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.

You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.

You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy.

Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that 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 the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.

Do the math.

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

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

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

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

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

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

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

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

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

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

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

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?

Or you could just stop trolling my threads.

They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.

It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.

I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.

Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.

You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.

sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.

Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...

I will call this Argument 1.

Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.

sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.

Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.

He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.

sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.

I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.

sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.

You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.

sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.

Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.

The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.

You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.

Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.

'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.

Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.

You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.

Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).

Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.

People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.

You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.

You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy.

Im a BM wrote:
You should have been banned more than 11 years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
Your trolling is absolutely RELENTLESS.

Im a BM wrote:
Your posts are REPELLENT to discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
And you won't stop, nor will anyone else stop you.

Therefore, I will keep my posting at climate-debate.com limited to environmental chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...

Im a BM wrote:
Bold italics have been added to assist Into the Night in understanding where IBdaMann acknowledges SILICATES as one of the oxyanions that provide alkalinity in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann had actually looked up sea water alkalinity and discovered the list of oxyanions responsible. I had listed bicarbonate and carbonate already, so he "corrected" my chemistry mistake by adding in hydroxide, silicates, and phosphates, whose combined alkalinity is less than 1% of sea water's total.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...

sealover wrote:
Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.

sealover wrote:
When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.

sealover wrote:
Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean.

sealover wrote:
Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it.

sealover wrote:
It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide.

sealover wrote:
Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea.

sealover wrote:
We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.

sealover wrote:

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.

This may be the last time I reply to one of your posts.

Personal insults rarely win a scientific debate.

You are right about one thing. I "don't have a degree in chemistry". That would mean I have only one such degree.

As for calling me a "liar". WTF?

Sounds like you know a lot about Davis. You got my number, all right.

It also sounds like a waste of time to try to discuss science with you.

Prove me wrong.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

He could have learned what alkalinity is. A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity, or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

Once a troll, always a troll.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

I started reading through this but I had to stop. I'll get back to it later today. In the meantime, I was hoping you would explain something that is giving me a bad taste about this article. What does the author mean by "organic." The article uses the word "organic" more liberally than products at Walmart. As you know, carbon is an element and can't be organic, yet you have used the term, as does this article "organic carbon" like that is supposed to mean something important, just not important enough to explain it to those reading the article. Then it uses the term "organic acids" without explaining. At Costco they sell "organic" chocolate milk without explaining that either. Should I be ignoring this article or is there really something I, as the reader, need to know that the stupid author was too brain-dead to mention?

How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word "organic" in this article? I know of many meanings, but the one that I would expect from a chemist is "carbon-based" or "of life/living/alive" ... and not this silly, seemingly redundant "organic carbon" crap. Anyway, I wouldn't care one way or the other if the author would explain up front instead of presuming that his readers are all mind-readers.

Im a BM wrote:The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it. Will the author be explaining these terms or am I expected to wonder what kind of waters are synthetic waters? ... and whether or not there are oralkaline waters and what that even means? Will the paper also discuss circumacidic waters and circumbasic waters ... or only the circumneutral waters?

Im a BM wrote:It DOES give good background on "The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk)..." Recommended reading for those who have difficulty with these definitions.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it.

Im a BM wrote:But what is special about the paper is recognition that organic alkalinity is a not a negligible contributor to total alkalinity. Indeed, our understanding of alkalinity is incomplete without it.

What do chemists consider "substantive" in this case?

Im a BM wrote:Organic alkalinity is responsible for making iron available to support photosynthesis in the sea.

Seawater gets its iron from other sources; the alkalinity is incidental. Thermal vents, erosion, dust, etc. all bring iron into the ocean.

"How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word 'organic' in this article?"

"Then it uses the term 'organic acids' without explaining."

"...and not this silly, seemingly redundant, 'organic carbon' crap."

"...presuming that his readers are all mind readers."


You, as the reader, are expected to be scientifically literate enough to understand the word "organic" in this article.

The term "organic acids" is so common, with 150 years of usage among scientists, that no research article needs to repeat the definition again.

The "'organic carbon' crap" is what you will find in chemistry research articles.

Readers of peer-reviewed scientific articles are not expected to be mind readers.

Readers ARE presumed to be scientifically literate enough to understand BASIC terms like "organic", "organic carbon", "organic acid", and even "organic alkalinity".

Referring to the "stupid author" as being the legitimate object of grievance because he failed to spoon feed remedial education for the potential reader who never studied enough chemistry to get anything out of the article anyway...

No, the failure here is the arrogance of the READER.

But, isn't IBdaMann omniscient about all things scientific?

Shouldn't he be explaining to the author what the words REALLY mean?

Maybe he will get a Nobel Prize for proving that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! Lamenting the Path Not Taken...

I can only imagine what my life would be like today if I had remained consistent in what I wrote in this post more than fours years ago.

I was right to conclude that it would be a waste of time to attempt to have a rational discussion about science with an arrogant, obnoxious, malignant narcissist, scientifically-illiterate TROLL such as IBdaMann.

I should have never taken the bait more than once.

He was correct to predict that, "You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap."

He had already creeped them out with obsessive stalking and over the top personal attacks, and had driven them all from the website before I got here.

My "crap" being the kind of meaningless gibber babble buzzwords an actual SCIENTIST could bring to the discussion.

Engaging in discussion with IBdaMann was never going to get any better.

The only goal was to be a troll with condescending word games, false accusations, personal attacks, and all kinds of mind-pHucking "Define your terms.." and "There is no such thing as" and projections of "You are a scientifically illiterate moron", "YOU believe blah blah blah RELIGION!"

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?

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann should have explained WHERE he found this EXCELLENT review article by WS Moore, et al.

His political analysis is HILARIOUS and displays NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER of the science in the paper he "debunks".

sealover wrote:
I do criticize Moore for that last sentence in the abstract about submarine groundwater discharge inputs promoting eutrophication if not properly managed. He had no evidence that it had ever happened, but was worried that it might. He was right that we needed to better monitor the stuff, because many ecosystems depend on SGD to support photosynthesis and shell formation.

sealover wrote:
Nothing in the excellent review paper by Moore et al "debunks" my assertions that submarine groundwater discharge supplies CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-) to marine ecosystems.

sealover wrote:
I love the fact that they made a point to get data for ORGANIC NITROGEN in the nutrient flux. I take pride in drawing the scientific community's attention to the NEED to measure dissolved organic nitrogen if they want to get the quantities in the total fluxes correct.

sealover wrote:
The FIRST sentence of my 1995 paper in Nature was:

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

Enter that sentence in Google Scholar and you can find my paper.

sealover wrote:
But that was before IBdaMann realized that "organic nitrogen" DOESN'T EXIST.

sealover wrote:
He left that out of his original criticism of my "organic nitrogen" claims.

sealover wrote:
The fact that "organic nitrogen" was a meaningless buzzword wasn't the problem. The problem was that the sentence wasn't attention-grabbing enough.

sealover wrote:
For the new viewer seeing this for the first time, SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE is what flows out to sea from beneath river deltas. Subsurface flow paths beneath the river bottom often carry a much larger volume of water to the sea than surface water in the river itself. Just offshore from the river mouth, the underground seeps flow into the sea.

sealover wrote:
In the low oxygen, organic carbon rich conditions of the underlying sediment, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for energy. They produce solid iron pyrite and dissolved carbonate ions, CO3(2-). Carbonate ions counteract marine alkalinity depletion occurring due to elevated atmospheric concentrations of "carbonic acid gas" (a.k.a. carbon dioxide).

sealover wrote:
Fun Fact: The FEMALE scientist who first published predictions of global warming about 180 years ago used the term "carbonic acid gas" to refer to CO2. That is what the chemists used to call it.

sealover wrote:
In addition to changing "Ocean Acidification" to "Marine Alkalinity Depletion", as the King of Science, I now issue by Royal Decree that "carbon dioxide" shall once again be known as "carbonic acid gas".

sealover wrote:
It is easier to explain Marine Alkalinity Depletion if you remind everyone that CO2 is actually CARBONIC ACID GAS.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann should have explained WHERE he found this EXCELLENT review article by WS Moore, et al.

His political analysis is HILARIOUS and displays NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER of the science in the paper he "debunks".

Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
I do criticize Moore for that last sentence in the abstract about submarine groundwater discharge inputs promoting eutrophication if not properly managed. He had no evidence that it had ever happened, but was worried that it might. He was right that we needed to better monitor the stuff, because many ecosystems depend on SGD to support photosynthesis and shell formation.

Submarines do not discharge groundwater.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.
SGD is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Nothing in the excellent review paper by Moore et al "debunks" my assertions that submarine groundwater discharge supplies CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-) to marine ecosystems.

Science is not a paper.
Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'marine ecosystem'.

sealover wrote:
I love the fact that they made a point to get data for ORGANIC NITROGEN in the nutrient flux. I take pride in drawing the scientific community's attention to the NEED to measure dissolved organic nitrogen if they want to get the quantities in the total fluxes correct.

Nitrogen is not organic.
Science is not a community.
Nitrogen is not a flux.

sealover wrote:
The FIRST sentence of my 1995 paper in Nature was:

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

Enter that sentence in Google Scholar and you can find my paper.

Nitrogen is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem nutrient fluxes'.
Science is not a search engine.
Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
But that was before IBdaMann realized that "organic nitrogen" DOESN'T EXIST.

Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:
He left that out of his original criticism of my "organic nitrogen" claims.

Nitrogen is not orgtanic
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:
The fact that "organic nitrogen" was a meaningless buzzword wasn't the problem. The problem was that the sentence wasn't attention-grabbing enough.

Nitrogen is not organic.
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:
For the new viewer seeing this for the first time, SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE is what flows out to sea from beneath river deltas. Subsurface flow paths beneath the river bottom often carry a much larger volume of water to the sea than surface water in the river itself. Just offshore from the river mouth, the underground seeps flow into the sea.

Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Submarines don't travel under river deltas.
A submarine is not a 'seep'.

sealover wrote:
In the low oxygen, organic carbon rich conditions of the underlying sediment, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for energy. They produce solid iron pyrite and dissolved carbonate ions, CO3(2-). Carbonate ions counteract marine alkalinity depletion occurring due to elevated atmospheric concentrations of "carbonic acid gas" (a.k.a. carbon dioxide).

Carbon is not oxygen.
Carbon is not organic.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not iron.
Pyrite is not iron.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:
Fun Fact: The FEMALE scientist who first published predictions of global warming about 180 years ago used the term "carbonic acid gas" to refer to CO2. That is what the chemists used to call it.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:
In addition to changing "Ocean Acidification" to "Marine Alkalinity Depletion", as the King of Science, I now issue by Royal Decree that "carbon dioxide" shall once again be known as "carbonic acid gas".

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Science is not a dictatorship.

sealover wrote:
It is easier to explain Marine Alkalinity Depletion if you remind everyone that CO2 is actually CARBONIC ACID GAS.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'Marine Alkalinity Depletion'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
An acid is not a gas.

sealover wrote: [IBdaMann's] political analysis is HILARIOUS and displays NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER of the science in the paper he "debunks".

sealover wrote: Nothing in the excellent review paper by Moore et al "debunks" my assertions that submarine groundwater discharge supplies CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-) to marine ecosystems.

sealover wrote: I love the fact that they made a point to get data for ORGANIC NITROGEN in the nutrient flux.

sealover wrote: I take pride in drawing the scientific community's attention to the NEED to measure dissolved organic nitrogen if they want to get the quantities in the total fluxes correct.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann spent a whole paragraph TRASHING that one sentence.

sealover wrote: But that was before IBdaMann realized that "organic nitrogen" DOESN'T EXIST.

sealover wrote: The fact that "organic nitrogen" was a meaningless buzzword wasn't the problem.

sealover wrote: For the new viewer seeing this for the first time, SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE is what flows out to sea from beneath river deltas.

sealover wrote: I now issue by Royal Decree that "carbon dioxide" shall once again be known as "carbonic acid gas".

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
YARP

Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Submarines do not discharge groundwater.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.
SGD is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Science is not a paper.
Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'marine ecosystem'.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Nitrogen is not organic.
Science is not a community.
Nitrogen is not a flux.

sealover wrote:YARP

Nitrogen is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem nutrient fluxes'.
Science is not a search engine.
Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Nitrogen is not orgtanic
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Nitrogen is not organic.
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Submarines don't travel under river deltas.
A submarine is not a 'seep'.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Carbon is not oxygen.
Carbon is not organic.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not iron.
Pyrite is not iron.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:
YARP

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:
YARP.

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Science is not a dictatorship.

sealover wrote:
YARP

Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'Marine Alkalinity Depletion'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
An acid is not a gas.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who wants to become more STUPID regarding organic nitrogen can read Into the Night's comments here. For example, they can read the meaningless sentence that "Nitrogen is not organic" SEVEN times.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who wants to LEARN SOMETHING about organic nitrogen can read:

Zengshou Yu, Robert R. Northup, and Randy A. Dahlgren. 1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate nitrogen. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, volume 25, pages 3161-3169.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Before this, everyone used the old Kjeldahl digestion procedure. Thirty years later, persulfate oxidation has largely replaced the Kjeldahl digest, because it is safer, faster, easier, and more accurate.

Im a BM wrote:

Robert R. Northup, Zengshou Yu, Randy A. Dahlgre, and Kristina A. Vogt. 1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature volume 377 pages 227-229.

F. Stuart Chapin. 1995. New cog in the nitrogen cycle. Nature volume 377 pages 199-200
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
By looking up all the newer papers that have cited these in the past 30 years, one can see what happened after the scientific community became aware that organic nitrogen was a major vehicle of nitrogen transport in soil and water, and a direct source of nitrogen nutrition to many plants, via mycorrhizal fungi.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
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.

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

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

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.

sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.

sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?

sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)

sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.

sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.

sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.

The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.

There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.

Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.

Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.

Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.

Groundwater is not a discharge.

sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.

Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
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.

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

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

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.

sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.

sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?

sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)

sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.

sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.

sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.

The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.

There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.

Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.

Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.

Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.

Groundwater is not a discharge.

sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.

Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.

sealover wrote: [IBdaMann's] political analysis is HILARIOUS and displays NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER of the science in the paper he "debunks".

sealover wrote: Nothing in the excellent review paper by Moore et al "debunks" my assertions that submarine groundwater discharge supplies CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-) to marine ecosystems.

sealover wrote: I love the fact that they made a point to get data for ORGANIC NITROGEN in the nutrient flux.

sealover wrote: I take pride in drawing the scientific community's attention to the NEED to measure dissolved organic nitrogen if they want to get the quantities in the total fluxes correct.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann spent a whole paragraph TRASHING that one sentence.

sealover wrote: But that was before IBdaMann realized that "organic nitrogen" DOESN'T EXIST.

sealover wrote: The fact that "organic nitrogen" was a meaningless buzzword wasn't the problem.

sealover wrote: For the new viewer seeing this for the first time, SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE is what flows out to sea from beneath river deltas.

sealover wrote: I now issue by Royal Decree that "carbon dioxide" shall once again be known as "carbonic acid gas".

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, you CAN reduce a sulfate. Well, maybe not YOU.

But there IS "such a thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry."

Oxidation is NOT a "buzzword", even if Into the Night never got that far in his high school chemistry class

Into the Night wrote:Sulfate is not a chemical.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sulfate is not a chemical.

It turns out that you are correct and that "Sulfate" is not a chemical, but rather is an entire category of chemical compounds.

How did you know this? Although this isn't firework science, you nonetheless sound like a chemist. Thanks for informing Robert and me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sulfate is not a chemical.

It turns out that you are correct and that "Sulfate" is not a chemical, but rather is an entire category of chemical compounds.

How did you know this? Although this isn't firework science, you nonetheless sound like a chemist. Thanks for informing Robert and me.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Science is a paper. Nothing more. Nothing less. Science is just a paper. Science has always been a paper and will always be a paper. Yup. Science is a paper.

Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
YARP?

Submarines do not discharge groundwater.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.
SGD is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
YARP!

Science is not a paper.
Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'marine ecosystem'.

sealover wrote:
YARP...

Nitrogen is not organic.
Science is not a community.
Nitrogen is not a flux.

sealover wrote:
YARP?

Nitrogen is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem nutrient fluxes'.
Science is not a search engine.
Science is not a paper.

sealover wrote:
YARP!

Nitrogen is not organic.

sealover wrote:YARP...

Nitrogen is not orgtanic
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:YARP!

Nitrogen is not organic.
Attempted proof by negation.

sealover wrote:YARP?

Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Submarines don't travel under river deltas.
A submarine is not a 'seep'.

sealover wrote:
YARP!

Carbon is not oxygen.
Carbon is not organic.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not iron.
Pyrite is not iron.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:
YARP...

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
There is no such thing as 'carbonic acid gas'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

sealover wrote:YARP?

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Science is not a dictatorship.

sealover wrote:
YARP!

Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'Marine Alkalinity Depletion'.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
An acid is not a gas.

Im a BM wrote:[absolutely nothing in this post]

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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:

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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

"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."

from: "Into the Night's comments" (blue link at top of post)

The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".


Regarding the post at the top, this was IBdaMann greeting me as I put up my first posts at this website.

"You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." - IBM

I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

"You obviously don't know anything about chemistry."

Says the guy who tells us

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

[b]- Into the Night

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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

"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."

from: "Into the Night's comments" (blue link at top of post)

The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".


Regarding the post at the top, this was IBdaMann greeting me as I put up my first posts at this website.

"You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." - IBM

I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

"You obviously don't know anything about chemistry."

Says the guy who tells us

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

[b]- Into the Night

But if you read "Into the Night's Comments" (highlighted blue link) and they aren't stupid enough to get you laughing, try "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (highlighted blue link) by IBdaMann!

"Ocean Acidification Debunked" goes FULL RETARD!

It explains how marine life would thrive as never before if we could just acidify the ocean down to pH below 7. Seriously! That is what he asserts.

He doesn't mistake carbonic acid for "carbolic acid", as Into the Night does.

IBdaMann's "Ocean Acidification Debunked" doesn't recognize that CO2 forms ANY kind of acid in water!

It DOES claim that "Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive." How "hostile" can it get at pH barely above 8?

Im a BM wrote:
The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".

Im a BM wrote:
Regarding the post at the top, this was IBdaMann greeting me as I put up my first posts at this website.

"You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." - IBM

Im a BM wrote:
I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Im a BM wrote:
Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

Im a BM wrote:
I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

Im a BM wrote:
From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Im a BM wrote:
The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

Im a BM wrote:
The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

Im a BM wrote:
"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

Im a BM wrote:
What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

Im a BM wrote:
"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.
"You obviously don't know anything about chemistry."

Im a BM wrote:
Says the guy who tells us

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

sealover wrote:
"Ocean Acidification Debunked" goes FULL RETARD!

sealover wrote:
It explains how marine life would thrive as never before if we could just acidify the ocean down to pH below 7. Seriously! That is what he asserts.

sealover wrote:
He doesn't mistake carbonic acid for "carbolic acid", as Into the Night does.

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann's "Ocean Acidification Debunked" doesn't recognize that CO2 forms ANY kind of acid in water!

sealover wrote:
It DOES claim that "Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive." How "hostile" can it get at pH barely above 8?

Im a BM wrote:
The Hostility of Alkaline Environments - IRON DEPRIVATION!

Im a BM wrote:
If the assertions made in IBdaMann's "Ocean Acidification Debunked" offer a teachable moment, it may be in regard to the "hostility" of alkaline environments.

"Alkaline environments are hostile to life, and require special adaptations in order to survive." - IBdaMann

With pH a little above 8, the ocean is mildly alkaline. Not particularly caustic.

Im a BM wrote:
But there is something hostile to life about this non-acidic pH condition.

Im a BM wrote:
The solubility of some inorganic forms of iron is very low at pH >8. The more oxidized form, ferric iron, iron(III), Fe3+ is virtually insoluble at sea water pH.

Im a BM wrote:
The reduced form of inorganic iron is soluble at sea water pH. Ferrous iron, iron(II), Fe2+, is soluble enough at pH >8, but it has a short life in an aerobic environment. Iron oxidizing bacteria use O2 as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ to ferric iron(III), Fe3+, which is insoluble.

Im a BM wrote:
In both soil and sea water, the bioavailability of iron can be limiting.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Citrus plants can get enough iron from soil with pH >8, or even pH >7. Special adaptations are required to survive the hostile alkaline environment, and citrus isn't adapted. We have to acidify the soil if we want the citrus to thrive. Otherwise, it just can't get enough iron from the soil to grow.

Im a BM wrote:
Plants have many adaptations to get iron from alkaline soils. One trick is to chemically reduce ferric iron(III), Fe3+, into the soluble form of ferrous iron(II). Phenolic compounds, among others, act as reducing agents in soil, transforming ferric iron into soluble ferrous iron.

Im a BM wrote:
Fun fact: the classic assays for total phenolic content of vegetation use ferric iron as the test reagent. How much ferric iron they can reduce into a colored ferrous iron compound is directly proportional to the total number of phenolic groups present in solution.

Im a BM wrote:
Another way to get that stubborn iron to become bioavailable is to use chelating agents - organic acids capable of forming organometallic complexes with the insoluble ferric iron(III). They call them "siderophores", and roots exude them into the soil to chelate iron and make it available for root uptake.

Im a BM wrote:
In sea water, ferrous iron(ii) is soluble, but it is at high risk of being oxidized to insoluble form by iron oxidizing bacteria, before any plankton gets to use the iron as fertilizer for photosynthesis. Large scale fertilization experiments most often apply a ferrous iron salt, such as ferrous sulfate. Iron oxidizing bacteria will surely get any that the photosynthetic organisms don't catch first.

Im a BM wrote:
And ferric iron is simply insoluble in sea water. At least in inorganic form.

Im a BM wrote:
Organometallic complexation of ferric iron, such as ferric citrate, can make Fe3+ soluble at sea water pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Organometallic complexation of ferrous iron, such as ferrous citrate, can make Fe2+ remain soluble in sea water for much longer than inorganic ferrous iron. The reactive sites on ferrous iron(II) are occluded from oxidation by being bonded to organic ligands. Iron oxidizing bacteria can't oxidize ferrous iron in organometallic complexes.

Im a BM wrote:
About 99% of the natural iron dissolved in sea water is associated with organic matter, rather than present as an inorganic salt.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm out of time, but the whole hostility of alkaline environments to life provided a chance to bring iron in.

Im a BM wrote:
And ORGANIC ALKALINITY is a component of sea water total alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote:
That fraction of sea water acid neutralizing capacity supplied by deprotonated organic acid anions. It is what keeps iron bioavailable in sea water. Without the iron complexing activity of organic alkalinity in sea water, there wouldn't be enough iron to support almost any photosynthesis

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The Hostility of Alkaline Environments - IRON DEPRIVATION!

Iron is not pH.

Im a BM wrote:
If the assertions made in IBdaMann's "Ocean Acidification Debunked" offer a teachable moment, it may be in regard to the "hostility" of alkaline environments.

"Alkaline environments are hostile to life, and require special adaptations in order to survive." - IBdaMann

With pH a little above 8, the ocean is mildly alkaline. Not particularly caustic.

The ocean itself is slightly caustic.

Im a BM wrote:
But there is something hostile to life about this non-acidic pH condition.

There certainly is, but life has adapted defenses to it.

Im a BM wrote:
The solubility of some inorganic forms of iron is very low at pH >8. The more oxidized form, ferric iron, iron(III), Fe3+ is virtually insoluble at sea water pH.

Iron is not inorganic.
Iron is not oxygen.
FE3+ is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The reduced form of inorganic iron is soluble at sea water pH. Ferrous iron, iron(II), Fe2+, is soluble enough at pH >8, but it has a short life in an aerobic environment. Iron oxidizing bacteria use O2 as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ to ferric iron(III), Fe3+, which is insoluble.

Iron is not inorganic.
Iron is no soluble.
Fe2+ is not a chemical.
Iron is not oxygen.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Fe3+ is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
In both soil and sea water, the bioavailability of iron can be limiting.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Citrus plants can get enough iron from soil with pH >8, or even pH >7. Special adaptations are required to survive the hostile alkaline environment, and citrus isn't adapted. We have to acidify the soil if we want the citrus to thrive. Otherwise, it just can't get enough iron from the soil to grow.

Citrus plants don't grow underwater.
You can't acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
Plants have many adaptations to get iron from alkaline soils. One trick is to chemically reduce ferric iron(III), Fe3+, into the soluble form of ferrous iron(II). Phenolic compounds, among others, act as reducing agents in soil, transforming ferric iron into soluble ferrous iron.

Fe3+ is not a chemical.
Phenolic is not a chemical.
Iron is not soluble.

Im a BM wrote:
Fun fact: the classic assays for total phenolic content of vegetation use ferric iron as the test reagent. How much ferric iron they can reduce into a colored ferrous iron compound is directly proportional to the total number of phenolic groups present in solution.

Phenolic is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Another way to get that stubborn iron to become bioavailable is to use chelating agents - organic acids capable of forming organometallic complexes with the insoluble ferric iron(III). They call them "siderophores", and roots exude them into the soil to chelate iron and make it available for root uptake.

Iron is not sentient.
'Bioavailable' is not a word.
Metal is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
In sea water, ferrous iron(ii) is soluble, but it is at high risk of being oxidized to insoluble form by iron oxidizing bacteria, before any plankton gets to use the iron as fertilizer for photosynthesis. Large scale fertilization experiments most often apply a ferrous iron salt, such as ferrous sulfate. Iron oxidizing bacteria will surely get any that the photosynthetic organisms don't catch first.

Iron is not soluble.
Iron is not oxygen.
Iron is not a fertilizer.
Iron is not a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
And ferric iron is simply insoluble in sea water. At least in inorganic form.

Iron is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
Organometallic complexation of ferric iron, such as ferric citrate, can make Fe3+ soluble at sea water pH.

Metal is not organic.
Fe3+ is not a chemical.
Iron is not soluble.

Im a BM wrote:
Organometallic complexation of ferrous iron, such as ferrous citrate, can make Fe2+ remain soluble in sea water for much longer than inorganic ferrous iron. The reactive sites on ferrous iron(II) are occluded from oxidation by being bonded to organic ligands. Iron oxidizing bacteria can't oxidize ferrous iron in organometallic complexes.

Metal is not organic.
Fe2+ is not a chemical.
Iron is not inorganic.
There are no 'reactive sites'.
Iron is not oxygen.
Iron is not organic.
Ligand is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
About 99% of the natural iron dissolved in sea water is associated with organic matter, rather than present as an inorganic salt.

Iron is no soluble.
Iron is not organic.
Iron is not a salt.
Iron is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm out of time, but the whole hostility of alkaline environments to life provided a chance to bring iron in.

Iron is not pH.

Im a BM wrote:
And ORGANIC ALKALINITY is a component of sea water total alkalinity.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
That fraction of sea water acid neutralizing capacity supplied by deprotonated organic acid anions. It is what keeps iron bioavailable in sea water. Without the iron complexing activity of organic alkalinity in sea water, there wouldn't be enough iron to support almost any photosynthesis

There is no sea water acid.
Seawater is alkaline.
'Bioavilable' is not a word.
There is no such thing as 'Iron complexing activity'.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.

You still don't get it.
You buzzwords and gibber-babble is not chemistry or science.

Im a BM wrote:
Your stupidity is astounding.

Apparently, you are not aware how OBVIOUS your stupidity is to others.

Apparently, you believe you are contributing something of value by being an obnoxious TROLL on everything I post.

With enlightening revelations such as...

"Iron is not oxygen." - Into the Night

Only a troll that is really a chemist would know that very surprising scientific fact!

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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

"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."

from: "Into the Night's comments" (blue link at top of post)

The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".


Regarding the post at the top, this was IBdaMann greeting me as I put up my first posts at this website.

"You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." - IBM

I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

"You obviously don't know anything about chemistry."

Says the guy who tells us

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

[b]- Into the Night

sealover wrote:Google, "Why use soil acidifier for citrus trees?"