Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Im a BM wrote:
"Respiration" is the exclusive domain of the MITOCHONDRIA.

Im a BM wrote:
Aerobic eukaryotic organisms have mitochondria in their cells. These mitochondria use oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon, usually in the form of glucose. Most of the energy released is used to generate ATP. That ATP is used by the rest of the cell (non-mitochondrial component) as the energy currency for metabolism.

Im a BM wrote:
Liver flukes provide an example of how different the metabolic pathways are.

Juvenile liver flukes can use oxygen, in their mitochondria, to generate ATP from aerobic glucose oxidation (i.e. respiration). Adult liver flukes cannot. Adult liver flukes are strictly anaerobic, and their mitochondria are present but inactive. Adult liver flukes get their ATP by performing anaerobic fermentation of glucose, in a very inefficient process. But just because a cell has a mitochondria capable of aerobic respiration, it doesn't mean they HAVE to. They can still get ATP the old fashioned way, as organisms used to do before any oxygen was available for use on land or in the sea.

Im a BM wrote:
The mitochondria was an independent bacteria that formed a symbiosis with a much larger eukaryotic cell. The partnership enabled the exploitation of a newly available resource in the environment. The mitochondria was one of the first bacteria to evolve the capacity to generate ATP, using oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. As a symbiotic partner, it enabled its host cell to get far greater energy yields from organic carbon oxidation.

Im a BM wrote:
There was no "oxygen catastrophe" or mass extinction that ever occurred because a powerful new oxidant in the environment was suddenly present at high enough concentration to kill everybody. To the contrary, it opened up new niches for organisms to get more metabolic energy from the organic carbon they oxidized for a living. There was fierce competition for this precious new resource. Bacteria that oxidized sulfur, iron, manganese, ammonium, and other reductants competed to get close to the cyanobacteria putting out the O2.

Im a BM wrote:
As oxygen became more and more available, a niche opened up for a partnership between mitochondrial bacteria and an anaerobic eukaryotic cell. They would be able to outcompete everyone else because they could get so much more bang for the buck from organic carbon oxidation.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no 'decomposition and respiration' on the sea floor." - ITN

When Into the Night asserts that "There is no...", it is nearly always in reference to something that anyone can easily confirm that there IS.

Im a BM wrote:
I could Google the question, "Is there 'decomposition and respiration' on the sea floor?". However, I already know the answer.

Of COURSE there is "decomposition and respiration' on the sea floor!

Im a BM wrote:
Every living multicellular animal down there that uses oxygen is performing respiration on the sea floor. Respiration is when an organism uses oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon. Such as ourselves, and every sea floor critter that uses some kind of gill to get oxygen from the water. Like ourselves, these aerobic sea floor creatures put out carbon dioxide, CO2, as the inorganic (oxidized) carbon product generated by respiration of organic carbon. Is is a source of fresh CO2 delivered right to the sea floor, using locally available resources (oxygen, O2, and organic carbon, "R").

Im a BM wrote:
And YES, decomposition of organic matter that falls to the sea floor DOES occur. It can be a very slow process at such low temperature, but it happens. Decomposition of sea floor organic carbon by microorganisms can occur aerobically using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor. Like respiration, the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product is carbon dioxide, CO2, generated deep down on the sea floor. One example would be aerobic methane-oxidizing bacteria in a sea floor microsite where methane is emitted from anaerobic sediment fermentation or geologic processes.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, microbial decomposition of organic carbon deposited on the sea floor can occur in the low oxygen zone slightly beneath the sea floor surface. Whereas sea water rarely has more than 8 ppm O2, it typically contains 2700 ppm sulfate. When the small amount of O2 is depleted by aerobic decomposition or respiration, microbial sulfate reduction can occur using the abundant sulfate in sea water. Unlike aerobic decomposition, anaerobic decomposition via sulfate reduction generates CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-) as the oxidized (i.e. "inorganic") carbon product. Let's consider a methane-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacteria on the sea floor.

Im a BM wrote:
However, this process usually occurs in the presence of ferrous iron, Fe2+, so rather than emitting H2S, it forms iron pyrite, FeS2

Im a BM wrote:
Although the sea is absolutely loaded with available sulfate ion, SO4(2-), it is only able to penetrate a very short distance into the sea floor via passive diffusion. The vast majority of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea are derived from microbial sulfate reduction occurring where a current of flowing water carries sulfate ion into low-oxygen, organic-carbon-rich sediment. Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the biggest source of carbonate ions entering sea water. The alkalinity is derived primarily from microbial sulfate reduction. "Submarine" means it occurs beneath the surface of the sea. "Groundwater" means it is of terrestrial origin, flowing off the land above sea level, carried beneath the surface water in underground flow paths, and entering the sea through seeps that are below the sea level surface.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night asserts that "There is no.." about a LOT of things.

Where ITN goes FULL RETARD is when he insists that "There is no such thing as...", and it is nearly always something that anyone can look up to verify the actual existence of.

Im a BM wrote:
Just from this little essay, ITN has repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER that "There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'."

Im a BM wrote:
I invite ANYONE to look this one up. It is a useful chemistry term to learn.

Im a BM wrote:
And ANYONE can very easily verify that there IS respiration and decomposition on the sea floor.

Im a BM wrote:
Even if ITN is willing to repeat his sentence ten thousand times that "there is no such thing".

Is the sea floor "barren"?

Im a BM wrote:
HELL NO!

The reason we have underground deposits of petroleum today is because the ancient sea floor of the shallow sea of the continental shelf was anything but "barren". Productive photosynthesis at the surface rained down organic matter and dead microorganisms which piled up on the sea floor. These materials were rich in lipids. Having relatively high carbon to oxygen ratio, and relatively low carbon to hydrogen ratio, geologic metamorphism under high temperature and pressure squeezed and baked out all the oxygen bonded to the carbon, forming H2O, and leaving behind pure hydrocarbons.

Im a BM wrote:
In contrast, organic matter piling up in ancient swamps had relatively high carbon to hydrogen ratio and relatively low carbon to oxygen ratio, being comprise predominantly of carbohydrate, lignin, and tannin. During geologic metamorphism, the high oxygen content consumed all the hydrogen, as these atoms were cleaved off the carbon to form H2O. This baked and squeezed out all the hydrogen as well as the oxygen, leaving behind nearly pure carbon coal.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Anyone who can read can see how DISHONEST IBdaMann is.

You're the one with the socks, Robert.
You're the one trying to deny science.
You're the one trying to pretend to be a scientist.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
He clearly wrote, "the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water."

In response to how much pH would change upon addition of a drop of acid.

This statement is correct.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
In his flagrant, habitual DISHONESTY, IBdaMann now tries to claim that he said "..bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but I will in fact see bigger impact on acid.."

"..impact on acid.."? WTF??? Not defined as change to pH. Not defined at all.

Acid is not pH, Robert.

[b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
But what IBdaMann actually said was "the impact of a drop of the acid.. on the sea water... on the pure water."
[/b]

No, he didn't. Don't put words in peoples mouths. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 30a.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! You LYIN' motherpHucker!

He isn't. Lie. Synthesis.

You can't blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
As usual, you conveniently omitted the actual post and words of IBdaMann, so that you too could stand by your LIES along with him.

Im a BM wrote:
Neither of you has a clue how to measure alkalinity, but IBdaMann's actual comprehension of chemistry is superior to that of ITN. At least IBdaMann, eventually, figured out that pH = -log(H+), and therefore ANY solution with >1.0 M (H+) must have pH <0. He eventually realized that pH was an exponential function of base ten, and not the natural log. He eventually realized that his quip about "magical" acid with pH = 0.0 only revealed his ignorance.

Im a BM wrote:
But Into the Night conveniently omitted ALL of IBdaMann's original comments in order to do this reply. Had to go out of his way to remove the denied text.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann absolutely asserted the impact on the water of a drop of acid, not the undefined "change to the acid". You pHuckin' LIARS are a waste of time to discuss actual chemistry with.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyway, MOST rivers and MOST cubic meters of river surface water entering the sea have pH >7. However, many natural rivers are naturally acidic.
Paradox. An acid is not an alkaline.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The most naturally acidic rivers are a tiny minority where oxidation of ammonium or sulfides generates nitric acid or sulfuric acid. Some such streams can have pH well below 3.0 or even below pH 1.0 (see Dahlgren et al, Nature 1994, "California Acid Rock" is the title of the review article in the same issue of Nature). The first one Randy published about was NITRIC acid formed from oxidation of ammonium in the bedrock. Most such streams get their acid as sulfuric acid derived from the microbial oxidation of iron pyrite.
Ammonium is not a chemical.
Sulfide is not a chemical.
Nature is a rag.
Nitric acid does not form from a buzzword.
Sulfuric acid does not form from a buzzword.
Iron is not sulfuric acid.
Pyrite is not sulfuric acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In second place for most acidic rivers are those acidified by ORGANIC acids from the vegetation. "Blackwater rivers" can have pH below 3, in the case of the Amazon tributaries of the Rio Negro, flowing out of exceptionally tannin rich rainforests growing on "acid white sand" soils. Blackwater rivers are dark with organic matter, getting their low pH from tannins (phenol, carboxylic acids) and humic acids.

Im a BM wrote:
It is irritating that scientifically illiterate trolls compulsively shit all over my threads at this website. But it is easy to scroll past their bullshit.

Into the Night insists that no river in the world is naturally acidic.

Im a BM wrote:
At least ITN conceded that rain can be naturally acidic. But he can't seem to comprehend that Henry's law makes the pH of about 5.6 the predictable equilibrium pH reached by pure water in contact with the atmosphere at sea level. Nor can he comprehend that anthropogenic sulfuric acid and nitric acid are what make some rainfall have pH significantly lower than 5.6, as low as 3.0 in "acid rain" and as low as pH 2.0 in "acid fog".

Im a BM wrote:
The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps they have convinced each other that they are both credible as "scientists". I doubt that they have anyone else fooled.

Im a BM wrote: Indeed, the contrarian assertion that it is NOT a chemical is what is extraordinary and requires some kind of proof beyond repetition of a single meaningless sentence.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann now tries to claim that he said "..bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but I will in fact see bigger impact on acid.."

"..impact on acid.."? WTF??? Not defined as change to pH. Not defined at all.

Im a BM wrote:Anyway, MOST rivers and MOST cubic meters of river surface water entering the sea have pH >7. However, many natural rivers are naturally acidic.

Im a BM wrote: It is irritating that scientifically illiterate trolls compulsively shit all over my threads at this website. But it is easy to scroll past their bullshit.

Im a BM wrote: Into the Night insists that no river in the world is naturally acidic.

Im a BM wrote: At least ITN conceded that rain can be naturally acidic.

Im a BM wrote: Henry's law makes the pH of about 5.6 the predictable equilibrium pH reached by pure water in contact with the atmosphere at sea level.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wants to be sure that the whole world knows he is a scientifically-illiterate moron!

Im a BM wrote:
The pH buffering in sea water results from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and carbonate ion, CO3(2-) account for about 99% of the ocean's acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

Im a BM wrote:
Rather than get into the details of the carbonate system, or the ABSURDITY of invoking evaporation as a mechanism of pH regulation or buffering with a predictable "equilibrium" value..

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT a chemical "equilibrium" that regulates sea water pH, although the chemical equilibria of carbonic acid dissociation and bicarbonate dissociation play a major role. Ocean pH is NOT in "equilibrium" at pH 8.2. It is actually what scientists call a "steady state", because new matter and energy constantly enter the system.

Im a BM wrote:
There are two opposing processes that control the steady state pH of sea water.

1. The acidifying impact of "carbonic acid gas" (i.e. carbon dioxide or CO2) entering the sea from the atmosphere.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
2. The acid neutralizing impact of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea, primarily from the process of microbial sulfate reduction.

Im a BM wrote:
Organisms control both processes. Organisms cause CO2 to enter the atmosphere from the land and dissolve into sea water. Organisms cause carbonate ions to enter sea water. Neither process can be predicted or calculated acccording to any equilibrium. The combined effect of the two processes keeps the sea at a steady state pH of about 8.2

Im a BM wrote:
This thread was intended to be a place where microbial sulfate reduction and its management for enhanced alkalinity production could be discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?
A sulfur atom is "organic" ONLY if it is attached to an atom of organic carbon.

Im a BM 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).

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM 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.

Im a BM 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.

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

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.

Im a BM wrote:
But you don't have to be a real chemist in the real world to understand what "organic nitrogen" is.

Im a BM wrote:
You could just look it up in a dictionary or chemistry textbook. Or ask GOOGLE!

Im a BM wrote:

Google inquiry: "What does the term 'organic nitrogen' mean in chemistry?"

Because it is a real term used in chemistry, and a common one at that, Google has no trouble finding the definition.

Google say: "Organic nitrogen means nitrogen that is chemically bound inside a carbon-containing molecule. These are molecules tied to living things, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and urea. It is different than inorganic nitrogen, like ammonia or nitrate, which does not contain carbon."

Im a BM wrote:
Google's answer is mostly correct... But it contains a glaring error. Urea is NOT organic nitrogen. Urea does contain both carbon and nitrogen. But the carbon in urea is INORGANIC carbon. Maybe it's a technicality that not all chemists adhere to, but I was taught that "organic nitrogen" had to be attached to ORGANIC carbon to qualify as "organic". Urea is CO(NH2)2, a carbonyl group attached to two amine groups.

Im a BM wrote:
I'll go ahead and double check.. Well, Google insists that the carbonyl group is actually organic carbon, as long as it is part of a larger organic molecule. I wouln't call two amine groups an "organic molecule", but...

Im a BM wrote:
Well, anyone who wants a more complete tutorial can do what I just did and Google the question:

"Is the carbonyl group considered 'organic carbon' if it is attached to two amine groups?"

Google insists that urea IS organic nitrogen, because the carbonyl group IS considered to be "fully organic, as it is part of a standard carbon-based molecular framework containing carbon-nitrogen and carbon-oxygen covalent bonds."

Im a BM wrote:
I won't copy it here now, but Google goes on with long with a multi-point section under the heading, "Why it Is Organic Carbon"

And I stand corrected. There is some chemistry that even I didn't fully know!

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Coastal wetlands include river deltas.

Sometimes. So?

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

No, it's still a swamp.

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

They are still swamps too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
Rather than discharge alkalinity in groundwater flows,

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

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

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

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

One that you fail to consider.

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

Nope.

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

It won't budge at all.

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

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

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

WRONG. Alkaline is NOT neutral.

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

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

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

So?

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

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

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

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

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

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:
From March 9, 2022 - Same day as my very first post.

The Unstoppable Stupidity of Into the Night

Into the Night felt compelled to troll everything I post, beginning with my very first post on my very first thread...

What is impressive reading his arrogant and ignorant comments (below) is that in the four and a half years since, he has been unable to learn anything about chemistry.
Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced. That's what microbial sulfate reduction does.

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

Nope. Learn basic science.

The sulfate ion [ SO4(2-) ] is an attribute of a particular category.

You still haven't learned what a "category" is.
You still haven't learned that water evaporates.
You still don't understand the nature and reason of definitions.
You still delude yourseld into believing that you are omniscient and that you somehow "see" the ocean being depleted of its alkalinity, despite this obviously not being the case.

You still think you're a chemist.
You still think your WACKY religion is science.

If you were to become an instructor, you could only teach science denial.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

Nope. Learn basic science.

The sulfate ion [ SO4(2-) ] is an attribute of a particular category.

You still haven't learned what a "category" is.
You still haven't learned that water evaporates.
You still don't understand the nature and reason of definitions.
You still delude yourseld into believing that you are omniscient and that you somehow "see" the ocean being depleted of its alkalinity, despite this obviously not being the case.

You still think you're a chemist.
You still think your WACKY religion is science.

If you were to become an instructor, you could only teach science denial.

Google has access to CITABLE REFERENCES to back up her shit!

Im a BM wrote:Google Inguiry (not posed as question): "Peer-reviewed gibberish papers with the term 'sulfate reduction' in the title"

Gosh, there are a LOT of them!

Copilot's Response: Sulfate reduction is the process in which members of the sulfate class — that is, chemical compounds containing the sulfate anion SO₄²⁻ — are reduced to members of the sulfide class, which contain sulfur in the −2 oxidation state (such as S²⁻ or H₂S). The sulfate class includes compounds like sodium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and calcium sulfate. None of these are "a sulfate chemical" in the sense of a standalone molecule; they are sulfate salts, each with its own cation paired with the SO₄²⁻ anion.

During sulfate reduction, the sulfate anion undergoes a multi‑electron reduction sequence. The sulfur atom in SO₄²⁻ starts in the +6 oxidation state and is reduced stepwise through intermediates such as sulfite (SO₃²⁻) until it reaches the −2 oxidation state found in sulfide species. The overall redox transformation is:

SO₄²⁻ → SO₃²⁻ → S²⁻ → H₂S

This is a reaction pathway, not a category identity.
The sulfate class remains sulfate until the reduction occurs; the sulfide class is only formed after the reduction.

Biological sulfate reduction uses electron donors (such as organic acids or hydrogen) and enzyme‑mediated steps involving APS (adenosine‑5′‑phosphosulfate) and sulfite reductase. Abiotic sulfate reduction can occur under high temperature, high pressure, or in the presence of strong reductants. In both cases, the process converts a sulfate‑containing compound into a sulfide‑containing compound, but the categories themselves remain distinct.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, thousands of cosplaying "scientists" are under the mistaken impression that sulfate IS a chemical that CAN be reduced!

Im a BM wrote:There are so many papers out there about "sulfate reduction" that Google offers four major categories of such papers to narrow the search.

Im a BM wrote:
Google has access to CITABLE REFERENCES to back up her shit!

Im a BM wrote:

Google Inguiry (not posed as question): "Peer-reviewed scientific papers with the term 'sulfate reduction' in the title"

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, there are a LOT of them!

Apparently, thousands of so-called "scientists" are under the impression that sulfate IS a chemical that CAN be reduced!

Im a BM wrote:
There are so many papers out there about "sulfate reduction" that Google offers four major categories of such papers to narrow the search.

Im a BM wrote:
"Sulfate Reduction in Soil: Effect on Redox Potential and pH... blah blah blah"

Im a BM wrote:
This would be the large group of papers of greatest relevance to the discussion. It is in the waterlogged (low oxygen) wetland soil that sulfate reduction effects on pH are of greatest significance to restoring alkalinity to the ocean.

Im a BM wrote:
"Redox potential" is about the oxidation-reduction conditions. Sulfate reduction cannot occur under oxidizing conditions where oxygen, O2, is present. The virtually opposite biochemical process of sulfide oxidation can occur if O2 is present, transforming the products of sulfate reduction into sulfuric acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The effects of sulfate reduction, because the sulfate ion, (SO4(2-), a CHEMICAL, actually CAN be chemically reduced, on pH are to raise it.

Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate reduction transforms organic carbon into carbonate ion, CO3(2-), which is alkaline CHEMICAL that raises pH. Sulfate reduction uses the sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as the CHEMICAL needed to act as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant, oxidizer, or oxidizing agent) to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy.

Im a BM wrote:
Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon, using O2 as terminal electron acceptor generates the ACIDIC inorganic carbon product CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon, using sulfate ion, SO4(2-) as oxidant, generates the ALKALINE inorganic carbon product carbonate ion, CO3(2-)

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

You are not Google.
Google has no gender.
Google is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

Science does not use consensus.
There is no voting bloc in science.
Science is not a paper.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

You are only one person. You are not thousands of so-called scientists.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

Sulfate is not a soil.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

Science is not a paper.
Science does not use consensus.
Soil is not a wetland.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.
Sulfate is not pH.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
deleted

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Biochemical is not a word.
Sulfide is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.

Im a BM wrote:deleted

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.
(SO4(2-) is not a chemical.
None of your buzzwords are pH.

Im a BM wrote:deleted

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
Buzzwords are not pH.
Carbon is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.

Im a BM wrote:deleted

Carbon is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not inorganic.
Carbon is not an acid.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The irony is that Into the Night wouldn't know how to cite a credible source to support his argument if I came back with "Carbon IS oxygen!" "Carbon IS 'an alkaline'!" (whatever the noun "alkaline" is supposed to mean)

Into the Night is just pHucking STUPID, and insists on making sure that the whole world has no doubt about it.

Can he even compose a sentence that isn't centered around "is not"?

Does he even know how to advance anything other than an unsupported contrarian argument that contradicts what just about every credible scientist in the world agrees to be true?

At least cite your sources, since you REFUSE to define your terms.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

Nope. Learn basic science.

The sulfate ion [ SO4(2-) ] is an attribute of a particular category.

You still haven't learned what a "category" is.
You still haven't learned that water evaporates.
You still don't understand the nature and reason of definitions.
You still delude yourseld into believing that you are omniscient and that you somehow "see" the ocean being depleted of its alkalinity, despite this obviously not being the case.

You still think you're a chemist.
You still think your WACKY religion is science.

If you were to become an instructor, you could only teach science denial.

Google has access to CITABLE REFERENCES to back up her shit!

Irrelevant. Google has access to CITABLE SCIENCE but strangely you can never seem to find any no matter how much you Google.

Google has access to CITABLE DEFINITIONS but strangely you can never produce any no matter how much you Google.

Google knows that soil has no pH, despite what many misinformed cosplaying laymen, such as yourself, have been led to believe by their religious clergy. Google knows what chemists know, i.e. that only solutions made with soil as an ingredient can have a pH.

You shouldn't have slept through middle school.

Im a BM wrote:Google Inguiry (not posed as question): "Peer-reviewed gibberish papers with the term 'sulfate reduction' in the title"

Gosh, there are a LOT of them!

Too funny!
Copilot Inquiry (not posed as a question): "Science of Sulfate Reduction"

Copilot's Response: Sulfate reduction is the process in which members of the sulfate class — that is, chemical compounds containing the sulfate anion SO₄²⁻ — are reduced to members of the sulfide class, which contain sulfur in the −2 oxidation state (such as S²⁻ or H₂S). The sulfate class includes compounds like sodium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and calcium sulfate. None of these are "a sulfate chemical" in the sense of a standalone molecule; they are sulfate salts, each with its own cation paired with the SO₄²⁻ anion.

During sulfate reduction, the sulfate anion undergoes a multi‑electron reduction sequence. The sulfur atom in SO₄²⁻ starts in the +6 oxidation state and is reduced stepwise through intermediates such as sulfite (SO₃²⁻) until it reaches the −2 oxidation state found in sulfide species. The overall redox transformation is:

SO₄²⁻ → SO₃²⁻ → S²⁻ → H₂S

This is a reaction pathway, not a category identity.
The sulfate class remains sulfate until the reduction occurs; the sulfide class is only formed after the reduction.

Biological sulfate reduction uses electron donors (such as organic acids or hydrogen) and enzyme‑mediated steps involving APS (adenosine‑5′‑phosphosulfate) and sulfite reductase. Abiotic sulfate reduction can occur under high temperature, high pressure, or in the presence of strong reductants. In both cases, the process converts a sulfate‑containing compound into a sulfide‑containing compound, but the categories themselves remain distinct.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, thousands of cosplaying "scientists" are under the mistaken impression that sulfate IS a chemical that CAN be reduced!

Yep. It is likely that every single one of them is an undereducated Democrat who believes that thermodynamics can be violated by "human activity."

Im a BM wrote:There are so many papers out there about "sulfate reduction" that Google offers four major categories of such papers to narrow the search.

Here's the next question to add to your list of unanswered questions: How many mistaken morons are sufficient to transform their misconception into absolute truth?

You should abandon your science denial and ditch your WACKY religion. Embrace science and accept that water evaporates.

Im a BM wrote: Anyone following the discussion at climate-debate.com knows that IBdaMann is a compulsive LIAR.

Im a BM wrote: Even in the rare instance where IBdaMann cites something other than his own infallible omniscience as a source,

Im a BM wrote: without verification it is safest to assume the IBdaMann is simply LYING.

Im a BM wrote: In this instance, it would appear that IBdaMann is claiming that Google is a citable source that supports the RETARDED assertion that "soil has no pH".

Im a BM wrote: But there is no pHucking way that Google would agree that "soil has no pH", no matter how the inquiry is worded!

Im a BM wrote:
"Google knows that soil has no pH." - IBdaMann

"You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."
- IBdaMann

Anyone following the discussion at climate-debate.com knows that IBdaMann is a compulsive LIAR. Even in the rare instance where IBdaMann cites something other than his own infallible omniscience as a source, without verification it is safest to assume the IBdaMann is simply LYING.

Im a BM wrote:
In this instance, it would appear that IBdaMann is claiming that Google is a citable source that supports the RETARDED assertion that "soil has no pH".

Google does confirm that IBdaMann has a reputation as an internet troll who aggressively and repetitively disputes the validity of mainstream science.

But there is no pHucking way that Google would agree that "soil has no pH", no matter how the inquiry is worded!

Im a BM wrote:
Let's try two extremes - one straightforward question and one attempt to spin a question that might make Google say something really stupid.

Google inquiry#1: "Does soil have pH?"

Google inquiry #2: "Why do scientists claim that soil has no pH?"

Haven't done it yet, but I predict that neither inquiry will produce a result that agrees with the made up shit IBdaMann posted regarding Google and soil pH.

Now, having read both answers, I don't have the patience to copy them.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, I'll copy the first sentence and a half from GOOGLE:

"Yes, soil does have pH. It measures how acidic or alkaline the soil is.."
(Google, 2026)
If alligators can be amphibians, soil can be something that doesn't have pH.

A convoluted word game can make anything mean what IBdaMann wants it to.

Im a BM wrote:
In my own measurement of soil pH, which I tabulated for widely-cited peer-reviewed scientific publications, we had to say how we did it and give a proper name to the parameter. I only ever once published data where what we measured was actually the pH of the free soil solution in an intact soil column in the field. You can only do that when its raining in the forests we studied. Otherwise, you have to take a sample from the field to the lab and add water to it before you can get a pH reading. My two data columns were for soil slurries made with either pure water, or dilute calcium chloride.

Im a BM wrote:
The pure water soil slurry gives a pH reading that reflects the magnitude of hydrogen ion activity found in free soil solution. The (pH neutral) calcium chloride combines with the soil in a slurry that reveals a pH often more than a full pH unit lower than the pH measured with pure water. This is because calcium ions exchange for hydrogen ions adsorbed to soil surface cation exchange sites, putting those hydrogen ions out into solution for measurement.

Im a BM wrote:
It's hard to know why IBdaMann obsesses so much on what he claims to be MY disbelief in the process of water evaporation. I am well aware that water evaporates. It must have been at least sixty five years ago when it was first explained to me. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.

Im a BM wrote:
I have never been a member of the Communist Party, and I have never asserted in any way that "water does not evaporate". I think it was nearly ten kilocalories per mole to get liquid water to break those hydrogen bonds to become free as unattached gas molecules. I just looked it up, it's 40.65 kilojoules per mole to get water to evaporate. And water CAN evaporate! I have never been in a water evaporation denial cult as part of a WACKY religion.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Google knows that soil has no pH." - IBdaMann

"You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."
- IBdaMann

Anyone following the discussion at climate-debate.com knows that IBdaMann is a compulsive LIAR. Even in the rare instance where IBdaMann cites something other than his own infallible omniscience as a source, without verification it is safest to assume the IBdaMann is simply LYING.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Science is not a verification.

Im a BM wrote:
In this instance, it would appear that IBdaMann is claiming that Google is a citable source that supports the RETARDED assertion that "soil has no pH".

Google does confirm that IBdaMann has a reputation as an internet troll who aggressively and repetitively disputes the validity of mainstream science.

But there is no pHucking way that Google would agree that "soil has no pH", no matter how the inquiry is worded!

Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's try two extremes - one straightforward question and one attempt to spin a question that might make Google say something really stupid.

Google inquiry#1: "Does soil have pH?"

Google inquiry #2: "Why do scientists claim that soil has no pH?"

Haven't done it yet, but I predict that neither inquiry will produce a result that agrees with the made up shit IBdaMann posted regarding Google and soil pH.

Now, having read both answers, I don't have the patience to copy them.

You are not Google.
You can't become Google.
Google is not sentient.
Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, I'll copy the first sentence and a half from GOOGLE:

"Yes, soil does have pH. It measures how acidic or alkaline the soil is.."
(Google, 2026)
If alligators can be amphibians, soil can be something that doesn't have pH.

A convoluted word game can make anything mean what IBdaMann wants it to.

You can't blame your word games on anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy.
Soil has no pH.
Soil is not an acid.
Soil is not an alkaline.
Alligators are indeed amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
In my own measurement of soil pH, which I tabulated for widely-cited peer-reviewed scientific publications, we had to say how we did it and give a proper name to the parameter. I only ever once published data where what we measured was actually the pH of the free soil solution in an intact soil column in the field. You can only do that when its raining in the forests we studied. Otherwise, you have to take a sample from the field to the lab and add water to it before you can get a pH reading. My two data columns were for soil slurries made with either pure water, or dilute calcium chloride.

Soil has no pH.
Science is not a publication.
Science does not use consensus.
There is no voting bloc in science.
Soil is not a slurry.
Soil is not calcium chloride.

Im a BM wrote:
The pure water soil slurry gives a pH reading that reflects the magnitude of hydrogen ion activity found in free soil solution. The (pH neutral) calcium chloride combines with the soil in a slurry that reveals a pH often more than a full pH unit lower than the pH measured with pure water. This is because calcium ions exchange for hydrogen ions adsorbed to soil surface cation exchange sites, putting those hydrogen ions out into solution for measurement.

Soil is not a slurry.
Soil has no pH.
Hydrogen is not an ion.
Soil is not a solution.
Calcium chloride in water is not 7.
Calcium is not an ion.
Soil is not a cation.

Im a BM wrote:
It's hard to know why IBdaMann obsesses so much on what he claims to be MY disbelief in the process of water evaporation. I am well aware that water evaporates. It must have been at least sixty five years ago when it was first explained to me. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.

Because you still deny water evaporates and it's effect on dissolved carbon dioxide and any carbonic acid that happens to be in it.

Im a BM wrote:
I have never been a member of the Communist Party, and I have never asserted in any way that "water does not evaporate". I think it was nearly ten kilocalories per mole to get liquid water to break those hydrogen bonds to become free as unattached gas molecules. I just looked it up, it's 40.65 kilojoules per mole to get water to evaporate. And water CAN evaporate! I have never been in a water evaporation denial cult as part of a WACKY religion.

You are a Democrat. You support communism.
You have several times denied that water evaporates.
Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not data.
Water can evaporate when near freezing, and ice can even evaporate (sublime).
You still ignore what happens to dissolved carbon dioxide and any carbonic acid in the water when it evaporates.

Im a BM wrote:
So, you still haven't figured out that I AM Google?

Who do you think tells Google to LIE and claim that lignin is actually an aromatic alcohol polymer more properly classified as a "polyphenol", and not some kind of "carbohydrate" by ANY definition?

How do you think Google decides to LIE that I am recognized as a real scientist in the real world? It is because I, PERSONALLY, control Google!

And that is why I can guarantee Google will contradict Into the Night's "chemistry" claims about just about anything!

Into the Night really is "recognized as a chemist", somewhere.

And that just BUGS THE HELL OUT OF ME!

So I programmed Google to LIE about it and portray Into the Night's chemistry assertions as if they were something only a "scientifically-illiterate moron" says.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
So, you still haven't figured out that I AM Google?

Who do you think tells Google to LIE and claim that lignin is actually an aromatic alcohol polymer more properly classified as a "polyphenol", and not some kind of "carbohydrate" by ANY definition?

How do you think Google decides to LIE that I am recognized as a real scientist in the real world? It is because I, PERSONALLY, control Google!

And that is why I can guarantee Google will contradict Into the Night's "chemistry" claims about just about anything!

Into the Night really is "recognized as a chemist", somewhere.

And that just BUGS THE HELL OUT OF ME!

So I programmed Google to LIE about it and portray Into the Night's chemistry assertions as if they were something only a "scientifically-illiterate moron" says.

You are not Google.
Polyphenol is not a chemical.
You deny many theories of science.
True Scotsman fallacy.
Science isn't a 'recognition'
You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Things that only a scientifically-illiterate, moron "chemist" would assert.

"Water itself is a buffer for acid." "Dilution is buffering."

I guess if you have no idea what the terms pH "buffer" or "buffering" mean...

Challenge for Into the Night

Write something besides "RQAA" to prove you have the slightest idea what the actual DEFINITION for "pH" or "buffering" is.

You won't because you can't. RQAA, dumbass.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Things that only a scientifically-illiterate, moron "chemist" would assert.

"Water itself is a buffer for acid." "Dilution is buffering."

I guess if you have no idea what the terms pH "buffer" or "buffering" mean...

Challenge for Into the Night

Write something besides "RQAA" to prove you have the slightest idea what the actual DEFINITION for "pH" or "buffering" is.

You won't because you can't. RQAA, dumbass.

Water is a buffer for all acids.
You cannot blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy.
I already have. So have others.
RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night simply REFUSES to define his terms.

Im a BM wrote:
He keeps his definitions for terms such as "pH" and "buffering" a SECRET.

Im a BM wrote:
He also just loves to write sentences that end with the words "is not a chemical".

But he keeps his definition for "chemical" a secret as well.

"CO3(2-) is not a chemical." - Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
This one is baffling, as it contradicts mainstream "woke" chemistry. Science may not be a consensus, but they at least agree on some basic definitions.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, WHY do you assert that CO3(2-), the divalent carbonate anion, is "not a chemical"?

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe IBdaMann can explain how CO3(2-) isn't a "chemical", just a "category"?

Im a BM wrote:

What the pHuck do you guys think a "chemical" IS?

DEFINE YOUR TERMS, you scientifically-illiterate morons!

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

Nope. Learn basic science.

The sulfate ion [ SO4(2-) ] is an attribute of a particular category.

You still haven't learned what a "category" is.
You still haven't learned that water evaporates.
You still don't understand the nature and reason of definitions.
You still delude yourseld into believing that you are omniscient and that you somehow "see" the ocean being depleted of its alkalinity, despite this obviously not being the case.

You still think you're a chemist.
You still think your WACKY religion is science.

If you were to become an instructor, you could only teach science denial.

Google has access to CITABLE REFERENCES to back up her shit!

Irrelevant. Google has access to CITABLE SCIENCE but strangely you can never seem to find any no matter how much you Google.

Google has access to CITABLE DEFINITIONS but strangely you can never produce any no matter how much you Google.

Google knows that soil has no pH, despite what many misinformed cosplaying laymen, such as yourself, have been led to believe by their religious clergy. Google knows what chemists know, i.e. that only solutions made with soil as an ingredient can have a pH.

You shouldn't have slept through middle school.

Im a BM wrote:Google Inguiry (not posed as question): "Peer-reviewed gibberish papers with the term 'sulfate reduction' in the title"

Gosh, there are a LOT of them!

Too funny!
Copilot Inquiry (not posed as a question): "Science of Sulfate Reduction"

Copilot's Response: Sulfate reduction is the process in which members of the sulfate class — that is, chemical compounds containing the sulfate anion SO₄²⁻ — are reduced to members of the sulfide class, which contain sulfur in the −2 oxidation state (such as S²⁻ or H₂S). The sulfate class includes compounds like sodium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and calcium sulfate. None of these are "a sulfate chemical" in the sense of a standalone molecule; they are sulfate salts, each with its own cation paired with the SO₄²⁻ anion.

During sulfate reduction, the sulfate anion undergoes a multi‑electron reduction sequence. The sulfur atom in SO₄²⁻ starts in the +6 oxidation state and is reduced stepwise through intermediates such as sulfite (SO₃²⁻) until it reaches the −2 oxidation state found in sulfide species. The overall redox transformation is:

SO₄²⁻ → SO₃²⁻ → S²⁻ → H₂S

This is a reaction pathway, not a category identity.
The sulfate class remains sulfate until the reduction occurs; the sulfide class is only formed after the reduction.

Biological sulfate reduction uses electron donors (such as organic acids or hydrogen) and enzyme‑mediated steps involving APS (adenosine‑5′‑phosphosulfate) and sulfite reductase. Abiotic sulfate reduction can occur under high temperature, high pressure, or in the presence of strong reductants. In both cases, the process converts a sulfate‑containing compound into a sulfide‑containing compound, but the categories themselves remain distinct.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, thousands of cosplaying "scientists" are under the mistaken impression that sulfate IS a chemical that CAN be reduced!

Yep. It is likely that every single one of them is an undereducated Democrat who believes that thermodynamics can be violated by "human activity."

Im a BM wrote:There are so many papers out there about "sulfate reduction" that Google offers four major categories of such papers to narrow the search.

Here's the next question to add to your list of unanswered questions: How many mistaken morons are sufficient to transform their misconception into absolute truth?

You should abandon your science denial and ditch your WACKY religion. Embrace science and accept that water evaporates.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Actually, the sulfate ion, SO4(2-), an anion with two negative charges, IS a chemical and it CAN be reduced.

Nope. Learn basic science.

The sulfate ion [ SO4(2-) ] is an attribute of a particular category.

You still haven't learned what a "category" is.
You still haven't learned that water evaporates.
You still don't understand the nature and reason of definitions.
You still delude yourseld into believing that you are omniscient and that you somehow "see" the ocean being depleted of its alkalinity, despite this obviously not being the case.

You still think you're a chemist.
You still think your WACKY religion is science.

If you were to become an instructor, you could only teach science denial.

Google has access to CITABLE REFERENCES to back up her shit!

Irrelevant. Google has access to CITABLE SCIENCE but strangely you can never seem to find any no matter how much you Google.

Google has access to CITABLE DEFINITIONS but strangely you can never produce any no matter how much you Google.

Google knows that soil has no pH, despite what many misinformed cosplaying laymen, such as yourself, have been led to believe by their religious clergy. Google knows what chemists know, i.e. that only solutions made with soil as an ingredient can have a pH.

You shouldn't have slept through middle school.

Im a BM wrote:Google Inguiry (not posed as question): "Peer-reviewed gibberish papers with the term 'sulfate reduction' in the title"

Gosh, there are a LOT of them!

Too funny!
Copilot Inquiry (not posed as a question): "Science of Sulfate Reduction"

Copilot's Response: Sulfate reduction is the process in which members of the sulfate class — that is, chemical compounds containing the sulfate anion SO₄²⁻ — are reduced to members of the sulfide class, which contain sulfur in the −2 oxidation state (such as S²⁻ or H₂S). The sulfate class includes compounds like sodium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and calcium sulfate. None of these are "a sulfate chemical" in the sense of a standalone molecule; they are sulfate salts, each with its own cation paired with the SO₄²⁻ anion.

During sulfate reduction, the sulfate anion undergoes a multi‑electron reduction sequence. The sulfur atom in SO₄²⁻ starts in the +6 oxidation state and is reduced stepwise through intermediates such as sulfite (SO₃²⁻) until it reaches the −2 oxidation state found in sulfide species. The overall redox transformation is:

SO₄²⁻ → SO₃²⁻ → S²⁻ → H₂S

This is a reaction pathway, not a category identity.
The sulfate class remains sulfate until the reduction occurs; the sulfide class is only formed after the reduction.

Biological sulfate reduction uses electron donors (such as organic acids or hydrogen) and enzyme‑mediated steps involving APS (adenosine‑5′‑phosphosulfate) and sulfite reductase. Abiotic sulfate reduction can occur under high temperature, high pressure, or in the presence of strong reductants. In both cases, the process converts a sulfate‑containing compound into a sulfide‑containing compound, but the categories themselves remain distinct.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, thousands of cosplaying "scientists" are under the mistaken impression that sulfate IS a chemical that CAN be reduced!

Yep. It is likely that every single one of them is an undereducated Democrat who believes that thermodynamics can be violated by "human activity."

Im a BM wrote:There are so many papers out there about "sulfate reduction" that Google offers four major categories of such papers to narrow the search.

Here's the next question to add to your list of unanswered questions: How many mistaken morons are sufficient to transform their misconception into absolute truth?

You should abandon your science denial and ditch your WACKY religion. Embrace science and accept that water evaporates.

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?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
To my absolute delight, this paper speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to classic measure of nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
No complaints from IBdaMann that these terms ("organic nitrogen" and "organic phosphorus") required more definition. Because they did not. Any reader who passed an introductory college-level chemistry class (without cheating!) learned what these terms mean. Or would at least know how to look them up in a matter of less than a minute, to find the definition that scientists all use.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
The authors are encouraging other researchers not to omit the nutrient inputs to marine ecosystems entering the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
For example, if excess nitrogen fertilizer has already elevated the bioavailable nitrogen levels to potentially create a "dead zone", it might be a good idea to know if submarine groundwater discharge of bioavailable nitrogen in the same area might have an amplifying effect on the process.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Basically, the authors are pointing out that submarine groundwater discharge is a long overlooked but very important source of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus entering marine ecosystems.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
I can't blame the authors for not trying to take on EVERYTHING, but I wish they had included data for bioavailable iron, pH, and alkalinity (preferably speciated into carbonate alkalinity, bicarbonate alkalinity, and ideally ORGANIC alkalinity).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
The timing of the review paper suggests they were not yet aware that ORGANIC alkalinity, the acid neutralizing and pH buffering capacity that arises from organic anions of deprotonated organic acids, is a significant contributor to total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge. Organic alkalinity is also what makes enough iron become bioavailable to support photosynthesis.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
...deleted whining...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
To my absolute delight, this paper speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to classic measure of nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate.

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
No complaints from IBdaMann that these terms ("organic nitrogen" and "organic phosphorus") required more definition. Because they did not. Any reader who passed an introductory college-level chemistry class (without cheating!) learned what these terms mean. Or would at least know how to look them up in a matter of less than a minute, to find the definition that scientists all use.

Nitrogen is not organic.
Phosphorus is not organic.
Science is not a class.
Science is not a college.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
The authors are encouraging other researchers not to omit the nutrient inputs to marine ecosystems entering the sea as submarine groundwater discharge.

Buzzword fallacies (ecosystem, researcher, nutrient input, submarine groundwater discharge).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
For example, if excess nitrogen fertilizer has already elevated the bioavailable nitrogen levels to potentially create a "dead zone", it might be a good idea to know if submarine groundwater discharge of bioavailable nitrogen in the same area might have an amplifying effect on the process.

Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Nitrogen is not biology.
The ocean is mostly barren.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Basically, the authors are pointing out that submarine groundwater discharge is a long overlooked but very important source of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus entering marine ecosystems.

Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
'Ecosystem' is a buzzword.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
I can't blame the authors for not trying to take on EVERYTHING, but I wish they had included data for bioavailable iron, pH, and alkalinity (preferably speciated into carbonate alkalinity, bicarbonate alkalinity, and ideally ORGANIC alkalinity).

Iron is not biology.
pH is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbonate alkalinity is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate alkalinity is not a chemical.
Organic alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
The timing of the review paper suggests they were not yet aware that ORGANIC alkalinity, the acid neutralizing and pH buffering capacity that arises from organic anions of deprotonated organic acids, is a significant contributor to total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge. Organic alkalinity is also what makes enough iron become bioavailable to support photosynthesis.

Organic alkalinity is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Submarines don't discharge groundwater.
Iron is not biology.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
...deleted whining...

Stop whining.

Im a BM wrote:
"Evaporation makes the pH of about 8.2 the predictable equilibrium pH reached by sea water." - IBdaMann

IBdaMann wants to be sure that the whole world knows he is a scientifically-illiterate moron!

The pH buffering in sea water results from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and carbonate ion, CO3(2-) account for about 99% of the ocean's acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

Rather than get into the details of the carbonate system, or the ABSURDITY of invoking evaporation as a mechanism of pH regulation or buffering with a predictable "equilibrium" value..

It is NOT a chemical "equilibrium" that regulates sea water pH, although the chemical equilibria of carbonic acid dissociation and bicarbonate dissociation play a major role. Ocean pH is NOT in "equilibrium" at pH 8.2. It is actually what scientists call a "steady state", because new matter and energy constantly enter the system.

There are two opposing processes that control the steady state pH of sea water.

1. The acidifying impact of "carbonic acid gas" (i.e. carbon dioxide or CO2) entering the sea from the atmosphere.

2. The acid neutralizing impact of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea, primarily from the process of microbial sulfate reduction.

Organisms control both processes. Organisms cause CO2 to enter the atmosphere from the land and dissolve into sea water. Organisms cause carbonate ions to enter sea water. Neither process can be predicted or calculated acccording to any equilibrium. The combined effect of the two processes keeps the sea at a steady state pH of about 8.2

This thread was intended to be a place where microbial sulfate reduction and its management for enhanced alkalinity production could be discussed.

Keeps getting shit on by trolls who think dilution and evaporation buffer pH, and ocean acidification is a Communist hoax.

Below is what happened in response to my very first post. Ironically, IBdaMann attached the abstract of a good review paper to support his political diatribe.
____________________________________________________________

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?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Yes, the sulfate anion CAN be reduced, and it couldn't care less whether or not anyone wants to call sulfate a "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Hey, IBdaMann, why don't you ask Copilot about how microbial sulfate reduction creates carbonate ions, CO3(2-) as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
THEN you'll be closer to understanding what keeps the sea at pH > 8.2, despite the continuous net flux of CO2 from the atmosphere into the sea.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
According to Google, 0.032 GIGATONS of CO2 per day goes into the sea from the atmosphere, and does NOT come back out to the sky. That makes more and more carbonic acid every day!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Sulfate CAN be reduced, and DOES get reduced, and regardless of whether or not one wants to label sulfate as a "chemical", the chemical behavior of sulfate reduction is an acid neutralizing process.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
So what if you don't like the label "chemical"?

The "chemical" label and the dubious choice to deny it is totally irrelevant to the chemistry of sulfate reduction as an acid neutralizing process.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
The pH buffering in sea water results from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, and carbonate ion, CO3(2-) account for about 99% of the ocean's acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Rather than get into the details of the carbonate system, or the ABSURDITY of invoking evaporation as a mechanism of pH regulation or buffering with a predictable "equilibrium" value..

[quote]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
It is NOT a chemical "equilibrium" that regulates sea water pH, although the chemical equilibria of carbonic acid dissociation and bicarbonate dissociation play a major role. Ocean pH is NOT in "equilibrium" at pH 8.2. It is actually what scientists call a "steady state", because new matter and energy constantly enter the system.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
There are two opposing processes that control the steady state pH of sea water.

1. The acidifying impact of "carbonic acid gas" (i.e. carbon dioxide or CO2) entering the sea from the atmosphere.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
2. The acid neutralizing impact of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea, primarily from the process of microbial sulfate reduction.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Organisms control both processes. Organisms cause CO2 to enter the atmosphere from the land and dissolve into sea water. Organisms cause carbonate ions to enter sea water. Neither process can be predicted or calculated acccording to any equilibrium. The combined effect of the two processes keeps the sea at a steady state pH of about 8.2

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
This thread was intended to be a place where microbial sulfate reduction and its management for enhanced alkalinity production could be discussed.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Keeps getting shit on by trolls who think dilution and evaporation buffer pH, and ocean acidification is a Communist hoax.

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

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

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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
For comic relief, one might read the BIZZARE interpretation offered by IBdaMann, sniffing out conspiracies to get funding greater government control.

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

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

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

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

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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).

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle 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.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Because real chemists in the real world know what "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" are.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:But you don't have to be a real chemist in the real world to understand what "organic nitrogen" is.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:You could just look it up in a dictionary or chemistry textbook. Or ask GOOGLE!

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:

Google say: "Organic nitrogen means nitrogen that is chemically bound inside a carbon-containing molecule. These are molecules tied to living things, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and urea. It is different than inorganic nitrogen, like ammonia or nitrate, which does not contain carbon."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Google's answer is mostly correct... But it contains a glaring error. Urea is NOT organic nitrogen. Urea does contain both carbon and nitrogen. But the carbon in urea is INORGANIC carbon. Maybe it's a technicality that not all chemists adhere to, but I was taught that "organic nitrogen" had to be attached to ORGANIC carbon to qualify as "organic". Urea is CO(NH2)2, a carbonyl group attached to two amine groups.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I'll go ahead and double check.. Well, Google insists that the carbonyl group is actually organic carbon, as long as it is part of a larger organic molecule. I wouln't call two amine groups an "organic molecule", but...

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
Well, anyone who wants a more complete tutorial can do what I just did and Google the question:

"Is the carbonyl group considered 'organic carbon' if it is attached to two amine groups?"

Google insists that urea IS organic nitrogen, because the carbonyl group IS considered to be "fully organic, as it is part of a standard carbon-based molecular framework containing carbon-nitrogen and carbon-oxygen covalent bonds."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:
I won't copy it here now, but Google goes on with long with a multi-point section under the heading, "Why it Is Organic Carbon"

Into the Night wrote:

[b]

Sulfate is not a chemical.

[b]

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Sulfate cannot be reduced.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Carbon is not oxytgen.
Carbon is not inorganic.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.

[b]

It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
The ocean vents carbon dioxide.

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

[b]

Im a BM wrote: Who the pHuck is Into the Night writing this for?

Im a BM wrote: The long series of sentences, mostly centered around "..is not..", are NOT a coherent reply to anything I might have written.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Who the pHuck is Into the Night writing this for?

He wrote it for your benefit. He mistakenly presumed that you were intelligent enough to learn. I'm sure you were laughing just as hard as I was.

Im a BM wrote: The long series of sentences, mostly centered around "..is not..", are NOT a coherent reply to anything I might have written.

Actually, everything he wrote directly responds to some error you made. The funny thing is that he erroneously presumed that you would be able to understand his comments. What was he thinking, right?

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Who the pHuck is Into the Night writing this for?

He wrote it for your benefit. He mistakenly presumed that you were intelligent enough to learn. I'm sure you were laughing just as hard as I was.

Im a BM wrote: The long series of sentences, mostly centered around "..is not..", are NOT a coherent reply to anything I might have written.

Actually, everything he wrote directly responds to some error you made. The funny thing is that he erroneously presumed that you would be able to understand his comments. What was he thinking, right?

You are correct.

I also point out the errors for others, so they can see Robert is trying to dazzle 'em with bullshit.
Maybe they are there and maybe they are not.

Consider it a habit from other forums, where there are more posters.
The Church of Global Warming forums are dying everywhere. Such believers are obviously distracted by the Church of Hate and TDS.

In a couple of years it will be VDS. It's already starting to show.

So the Church of Global Warming is taking a back seat, as it were. Forums have hundreds of thousands of comments on them, except for Church of Global Warming ones, with only 5 thousand or so to boast about.

Climate-debate.com is just as comparatively quiet, just hardcore bullshitters that need the attention, like Robert.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Formulaic" and "repetitive" are two of the adjectives used by GOOGLE to describe Into the Night's posting style in climate discussion.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Indeed, it describes Into the Night's circa 2015 participation in Usenet global-warming and other climate and science discussion groups as being "..famous for relentless semantic nitpicking and rejection of standard scientific definitions."

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
"Shutting down discussions" with "exhaustion inducing repetition" of very "short sentences".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:
Calls himself a "chemist", yet doesn't even know what a "chemical" is!