Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean09-03-2022 06:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.
09-03-2022 06:59
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
09-03-2022 07:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
one more attempt to attach a file

The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions.

The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification").

The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.

Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life.

Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks.

Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file
09-03-2022 16:27
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
The PH at Trigg beach is 8.3 as it is supposed to be.Where is it changing where you are
09-03-2022 16:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
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
09-03-2022 17:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
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:P 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?
09-03-2022 18:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

The pH of the oceans is unknown. It is not uniform everywhere.

You don't have to increase anything. Rain naturally falls as acid, but runoff water (everywhere) becomes alkaline. The rivers are alkaline by the time they reach the sea.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 18:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
one more attempt to attach a file

The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions.

Nope. It is not possible to measure 'our' CO2 emissions, nor the CO2 emissions of any nation. The CO2 concentrate in the ocean matches that of the air. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentrate of the atmosphere (or of the oceans). CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere (or the oceans).
sealover wrote:
The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification").

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not uniform.
sealover wrote:
The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.

There is no such thing. Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

More made up shit. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water. Carbonic acid also forms dissolved CO2 in water. The two reactions form an equilibrium, with only a very small percentage existing as carbonic acid at any given time.
sealover wrote:
Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life.

No. It's CRITICAL for shellfish to exist. Carbonic acid helps to break down the limestone in the ocean floor and make it available to shellfish to form their shells.
sealover wrote:
Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks.

You don't have that ability. Man does not have that ability. Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: PhD in biogeochemistry09-03-2022 20:46
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

sealover, the ocean has never acidified.

Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood. It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.

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

What I would do well to learn is how to attach files to these posts.

I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.

Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.

I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.

Ocean Acidification Debunked

Into the Night's comments

Coral Bleaching Debunked
09-03-2022 21:51
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

The pH of the oceans is unknown. It is not uniform everywhere.

You don't have to increase anything. Rain naturally falls as acid, but runoff water (everywhere) becomes alkaline. The rivers are alkaline by the time they reach the sea.


The pH of the ocean has been accurately measured millions of times. There are even some microsites where the ocean is actually "acidic".

The surface water (river) is only part of the equation. A much larger volume of water flows underground. The key issue here is groundwater discharge of alkalinity
09-03-2022 22:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

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

The amount of sulfur oxidized to sulfuric acid is ENORMOUS. Literally gigatons of buried pyrite in drained wetland soils was oxidized to sulfuric acid as they formed what are known as "acid sulfate" soils.

Right now, the biggest crop for which more coastal wetland is being drained is oil palm. Once the waterlogged peat is exposed to oxygen, the carbon dioxide emissions from these areas rivals that of fossil fuel combustion. Rather than discharge alkalinity in groundwater flows, these areas export sulfuric-acid-enriched surface water to the sea.

The concept of "buffering" is an important one.

If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. If I add a drop of acid to sea water, the pH will hardly budge.

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

Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
09-03-2022 22:15
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
one more attempt to attach a file

The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions.

Nope. It is not possible to measure 'our' CO2 emissions, nor the CO2 emissions of any nation. The CO2 concentrate in the ocean matches that of the air. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentrate of the atmosphere (or of the oceans). CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere (or the oceans).
sealover wrote:
The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification").

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not uniform.
sealover wrote:
The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.

There is no such thing. Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

More made up shit. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water. Carbonic acid also forms dissolved CO2 in water. The two reactions form an equilibrium, with only a very small percentage existing as carbonic acid at any given time.
sealover wrote:
Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life.

No. It's CRITICAL for shellfish to exist. Carbonic acid helps to break down the limestone in the ocean floor and make it available to shellfish to form their shells.
sealover wrote:
Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks.

You don't have that ability. Man does not have that ability. Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry.


It's hard to know where to begin. Carbonic acid is not chemically capable of dissolving calcium carbonate at the concentration present in sea water. Lucky for the corals.

Carbonate ions are not supplied much by dissolving dead shells, and they tend to pile up over time. Fresh carbonate ions are supplied by submarine groundwater discharge from terrestrial ecosystems.

It used to be more than a third of ALL terrestrial carbon dioxide emissions were absorbed by the sea. It can't selectively absorb just the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion or poor land management.

As the sea's alkalinity has been depleted, the capacity to absorb more CO2 is diminished.

It's easy to look up the fact that commercial aquaculture must now add alkalinity to sea water. Man DOES have that ability and is doing it. The concept of buffering doesn't change that reality
09-03-2022 22:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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?


The "threat" that plants and algaes might flourish is already manifest in the "dead zone" of the Gulf of Mexico. Agricultural nitrogen in the Mississippi River supports plankton blooms. Plankton die eventually. Too much available organic carbon and not enough oxygen for the microorganisms to burn it up. Fish and other creatures that depend on oxygen lose out. Or maybe this is all bullshit?

As for Army tactical vehicles and Navy aircraft... I never learned about that in my biogeochemistry investigations.

I understand that there is an article somewhere "debunking" the mainstream gravity "theory". Disbelief in gravity won't prevent things from falling.
09-03-2022 22:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
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.
09-03-2022 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

The pH of the oceans is unknown. It is not uniform everywhere.

You don't have to increase anything. Rain naturally falls as acid, but runoff water (everywhere) becomes alkaline. The rivers are alkaline by the time they reach the sea.


The pH of the ocean has been accurately measured millions of times.

Not possible. Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There are even some microsites where the ocean is actually "acidic".

There are no quotes around acidic. A substance is acidic, or it isn't. It's really pretty simple.
sealover wrote:
The surface water (river) is only part of the equation.
A much larger volume of water flows underground.

Strawman fallacy. It makes no difference.
sealover wrote:
The key issue here is groundwater discharge of alkalinity

Alkalinity is not a discharge. Groundwater is normally alkaline.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 22:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.[/quote]
There is no such thing. Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

More made up shit. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water. Carbonic acid also forms dissolved CO2 in water. The two reactions form an equilibrium, with only a very small percentage existing as carbonic acid at any given time.

Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry.[/quote]

You are actually right about one thing. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water, and only a very small percentage of dissolved CO2 is present as carbonic acid. But there are certainly more than two reactions.

Carbonic acid is in equilbrium with bicarbonate ion. Bicarbonate is in equilibrium with carbonate ion. There is much, much more bicarbonate than carbonate in sea water.

The third most important contributor to alkalinity in sea water, after bicarbonate and carbon ions, is ORGANIC alkalinity.

Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from anions of deprotonated organic acids.

About one fourth of the alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is ORGANIC alkalinity.

This matters a lot to marine ecology.

For example, iron is only bioavailable in sea water because it is chelated by organic alkalinity. Ferric iron does not precipitate upon contact with oxyanions, despite sea water pH, because its reactive sites are occluded by organic ligands.

Ferrous iron is plenty soluble in sea water, but easily oxidized by bacteria to the far less soluble ferric form. Complexation of ferrous iron with organic alkalinity protects it from oxidation, because its reactive sites are occluded by organic ligands.

Organically-complexed iron in submarine groundwater discharge is what allows many marine ecosystems to grow at all.
09-03-2022 23:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:The "threat" that plants and algaes might flourish is already manifest in the "dead zone" of the Gulf of Mexico.

Chemistry is not your strong suit. I think I might have mentioned this.

You are talking about a section of water in the Gulf that is naturally low in oxygen. Why should any rational adult believe that this is caused by previously flourising plants?

sealover wrote:Or maybe this is all bullshit?

Yes. Piecing together irrelevant trivia does not make your booolsch't point true.

sealover wrote:As for Army tactical vehicles and Navy aircraft... I never learned about that in my biogeochemistry investigations.

Exactly. You never learned that you are supposed to unambiguously define your terms.

Everything in science is unambiguously defined.

You never learned that you are supposed to unambiguously define your terms.

Everything in science is unambiguously defined.

Hmmmm, what conclusion am I drawing here?

sealover wrote:I understand that there is an article somewhere "debunking" the mainstream gravity "theory".

Science is not your strong suit. I might have covered this.

" Mainstream " is a word that applies to religion, not to science.

So let's talk about your continued pretense that you are somehow an expert on science matters. Is there a way to get you to just dispense with the notion and to just post like everyone knows you are simply pushing your personal religious beliefs?
09-03-2022 23:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
09-03-2022 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
one more attempt to attach a file

The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions.

Nope. It is not possible to measure 'our' CO2 emissions, nor the CO2 emissions of any nation. The CO2 concentrate in the ocean matches that of the air. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentrate of the atmosphere (or of the oceans). CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere (or the oceans).
sealover wrote:
The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification").

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not uniform.
sealover wrote:
The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.

There is no such thing. Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

More made up shit. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water. Carbonic acid also forms dissolved CO2 in water. The two reactions form an equilibrium, with only a very small percentage existing as carbonic acid at any given time.
sealover wrote:
Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life.

No. It's CRITICAL for shellfish to exist. Carbonic acid helps to break down the limestone in the ocean floor and make it available to shellfish to form their shells.
sealover wrote:
Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks.

You don't have that ability. Man does not have that ability. Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry.


It's hard to know where to begin.

I do. Go study chemistry. You might try studying physics in general, since you are also ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and even simple hydraulics.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is not chemically capable of dissolving calcium carbonate at the concentration present in sea water.

Yes it is.
sealover wrote:
Lucky for the corals.

The corals depend on it.
sealover wrote:
Carbonate ions are not supplied much by dissolving dead shells,

Never said they were.
sealover wrote:
and they tend to pile up over time.

No, they don't 'pile up'.
sealover wrote:
Fresh carbonate ions

Carbonate ions go stale? I better go out and buy some more then!
sealover wrote:
are supplied by submarine groundwater discharge from terrestrial ecosystems.

Define 'terrestrial ecosystem'. Groundwater is not a discharge. You seem to think there is some kind of magick in underground river systems. Special pleading fallacy.
sealover wrote:
It used to be more than a third of ALL terrestrial carbon dioxide emissions were absorbed by the sea.

Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers. The CO2 concentration in seawater generally matches that of the air above it. It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 in either air or water.
sealover wrote:
It can't selectively absorb just the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion or poor land management.

There is no fossil fuel combustion. Fossils don't burn. Poor land management causes erosion or other problems, not CO2.
sealover wrote:
As the sea's alkalinity has been depleted, the capacity to absorb more CO2 is diminished.

The CO2 concentration in air or in seawater is nowhere near capacity of absorption.
sealover wrote:
It's easy to look up the fact that commercial aquaculture must now add alkalinity to sea water.

Void reference fallacy. Void use of 'fact'. You can't add alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Man DOES have that ability and is doing it.

Not possible. You can't add alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
The concept of buffering doesn't change that reality

Your reality ignores chemistry and the laws of physics. It is obvious you don't even understand the concept of buffering.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 23:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file


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

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N
values above the Redfield ratio
). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.


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

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


The "threat" that plants and algaes might flourish is already manifest in the "dead zone" of the Gulf of Mexico.

What 'dead zone'?
sealover wrote:
Agricultural nitrogen in the Mississippi River supports plankton blooms.

Algae. It supports algae blooms. Plankton doesn't bloom.
sealover wrote:
Plankton die eventually.

Valar morghulis
sealover wrote:
Too much available organic carbon and not enough oxygen for the microorganisms to burn it up. Fish and other creatures that depend on oxygen lose out. Or maybe this is all bullshit?

It's all just bullshit.
sealover wrote:
As for Army tactical vehicles and Navy aircraft... I never learned about that in my biogeochemistry investigations.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
I understand that there is an article somewhere "debunking" the mainstream gravity "theory".

Gravity is not a theory.
sealover wrote:
Disbelief in gravity won't prevent things from falling.

A belief in gravity won't cause things to fall either. Ever hear of a Lagrange point? How about center of gravity? How about hot air balloons? How about clouds?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 09-03-2022 23:28
09-03-2022 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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


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

Argument of the Stick fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Personal insults rarely win a scientific debate.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
You are right about one thing. I "don't have a degree in chemistry". That would mean I have only one such degree.

Irrelevant. Degrees mean nothing on blind forums such as this.
sealover wrote:
As for calling me a "liar". WTF?

I believe he did. Making up numbers and fear mongering like you do is a form of lying.
sealover wrote:
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.

Perhaps, since you seem to be ignoring theories of science.
sealover wrote:Prove me wrong.

You already proved it yourself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2022 23:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

The "carbonate system" is a real thing. Far more than just two players in equilibrium. Do you know what bicarbonate is? 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)

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

Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.

Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.

Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid. This is basic textbook stuff.

Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well. Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation. Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.

Here's the true teachable moment.

Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation. Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.

Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage. Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity. Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.

A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water. Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
10-03-2022 00:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:This may be the last time I reply to one of your posts.

Thank you. Thus far you have only been wasting bandwidth.

sealover wrote:Personal insults rarely win a scientific debate.

How would you know? You have never debated any science. You apparently don't know any science to debate.

You don't even know what it means to define your terms.

You don't even know the difference between science and religion.

You can't even express your supposed "point" in your own words in plain English.

You are a moron who is trying to convince intelligent people that you are somehow an expert in science. How do you think that is going to work out for you?

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

Too funny! Just after claiming that you are not expecting to garner respect based on "credentials" you try to squeeze in the above statement.

I, for one, am not buying your claims of education. You have demonstrated nothing but scientific illiteracy and really lame excuses.

Is there a reason you refuse to simply state your point in plain English for others to scrutinize? Are you ashamed of whatever position/belief that you hold?

Check your posts. No point whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No demonstration of understanding any science.

Wait! ... you did try to make one point, i.e. that flourishing plant life has created a "dead zone."

For everyone else reading this, the new Climate Change threat is "hypoxic zones" that are areas of ocean that are low on oxygen. This gets hyped to "it's a death zone that is killing fish" and becomes an urgent call to regulate, not CO2, but "nutrients." Yes, "nutrients" are now a bad thing that must be regulated by the world's governments in order to save the planet. It differs not from Global Warming. Here is an "official" description of the hypoxic ground zero in the Gulf of Mexico. It will sound all too familiar:

Scientists are forecasting this summer's Gulf of Mexico hypoxic area or "dead zone" – an area of low to no oxygen that can kill fish and other marine life – to be approximately 6,700 square miles, larger than the long-term average measured size of 5,387 square miles but substantially less than the record of 8,776 square miles set in 2017. The annual prediction is based on U.S. Geological Survey river-flow and nutrient data.

Can you spot the booolsch't?

sealover wrote:As for calling me a "liar". WTF?

How many times do you need me to repeat it?

You're a liar. I explained why. Go back and read.

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

Do they still have the cow with the open side?

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

I would greatly appreciate you ceasing and desisting pretending that you have anything to contribute in the way of a science discussion. Of course it would be a waste of time for you to pretend to lecture anyone here on science because you don't know any.

You are certainly welcome to ask questions and to learn from people who do know science, but if your definition of "try to discuss science" involves you preaching booolsch't while everyone else just responds "Amen, brother!" then yes, just sit in the corner and shut the F up.

Let's just get this out of the way. You didn't come here to learn. You came here to have everyone read your stupid document, like no one has anything better to do with his time than to become indoctrinated into the next Climate Change scam.

Prove me wrong.
Edited on 10-03-2022 00:04
10-03-2022 00:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:


You are a moron who is trying to convince intelligent people that you are somehow an expert in science. How do you think that is going to work out for you?

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

Too funny! Just after claiming that you are not expecting to garner respect based on "credentials" you try to squeeze in the above statement.

I, for one, am not buying your claims of education. You have demonstrated nothing but scientific illiteracy and really lame excuses.

Is there a reason you refuse to simply state your point in plain English for others to scrutinize? Are you ashamed of whatever position/belief that you hold?

Check your posts. No point whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No demonstration of understanding any science.


sealover wrote:As for calling me a "liar". WTF?

How many times do you need me to repeat it?

You're a liar. I explained why. Go back and read.

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

Do they still have the cow with the open side?

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

I would greatly appreciate you ceasing and desisting pretending that you have anything to contribute in the way of a science discussion. Of course it would be a waste of time for you to pretend to lecture anyone here on science because you don't know any.


Let's just get this out of the way. You didn't come here to learn. You came here to have everyone read your stupid document, like no one has anything better to do with his time than to become indoctrinated into the next Climate Change scam.

Prove me wrong.


I came here to have everyone read my stupid document.

I was unable to post it.

Aren't you just burning with curiosity to know what it might have been about?

It could have used a good de-bunking, don't you think?
10-03-2022 01:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
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"?
10-03-2022 02:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
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.

So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.

Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.

Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?

HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
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)

It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.

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

Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.

You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.

Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.

No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
[quote]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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 02:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.


Excellent!

We now have acknowledgement that bicarbonate exists as one of the buffers in sea water.

Bicarbonate salts are far more soluble than carbonate salts of any given cation.

There is a heck of a lot more bicarbonate than carbonate dissolved in sea water.
RE: look up "sulfate reduction"!!!10-03-2022 03:09
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[/quote]
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.[/quote]

Another revealing, teachable moment.

I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".

Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.

Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.

Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.

Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.

Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)

Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.

Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.


Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.

Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"
10-03-2022 03:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".

I misspoke previously. Now you have discarded any credibility you might have still had.

Let's relish this revealing moment.

1. You believe that "peer reviewed" has something to do with science.
2. You think that science is a paper.
3. You believe that there is a certain quantity of document titles that makes any assertion become true.

Allow me a moment to bask in the smoldering glow of your cognition acidification and its increase in bioavailability. I am seriously considering adding this to my sig block.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: Is this Communist Cancel Culture?10-03-2022 04:47
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".

I misspoke previously. Now you have discarded any credibility you might have still had.

Let's relish this revealing moment.

1. You believe that "peer reviewed" has something to do with science.
2. You think that science is a paper.
3. You believe that there is a certain quantity of document titles that makes any assertion become true.

Allow me a moment to bask in the smoldering glow of your cognition acidification and its increase in bioavailability. I am seriously considering adding this to my sig block.

.


My first amendment right allows me to use any term I want without having to define it to Big Brother's satisfaction.

Is this that Communist Cancel Culture that I've been hearing about?
10-03-2022 05:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".

I misspoke previously. Now you have discarded any credibility you might have still had.

Let's relish this revealing moment.

1. You believe that "peer reviewed" has something to do with science.
2. You think that science is a paper.
3. You believe that there is a certain quantity of document titles that makes any assertion become true.

Allow me a moment to bask in the smoldering glow of your cognition acidification and its increase in bioavailability. I am seriously considering adding this to my sig block.

My first amendment right allows me to EVADE all I want without having to anchor any goalposts.

Yes, I know, but just relish the moment. Take it all in. Comedy Central doesn't write to this level. You combined three distinct and clear revelations of callow sciolism in one short sentence. I'm waiting to see for how long you plan to continue this charade ... without clearly stating any point and without providing the requested definitions.

Too funny.
10-03-2022 07:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
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.


Excellent!

We now have acknowledgement that bicarbonate exists as one of the buffers in sea water.

Bicarbonate is not a buffer.
sealover wrote:
Bicarbonate salts are far more soluble than carbonate salts of any given cation.

Compositional error fallacy. It depends on the salt.
sealover wrote:
There is a heck of a lot more bicarbonate than carbonate dissolved in sea water.

Carbonates (including bicarbonates) are generally insoluble. There are some exceptions, such as sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), potassium carbonate (pearl ash) and the major component of potash, and lithium carbonate (a psychoquackery drug).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 07:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.[/quote]

Another revealing, teachable moment.

I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".[/quote]
Science is not a paper, website, book, or pamphlet. It has no voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.

No. It is not reduced at all.
sealover wrote:
Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.

No. Elemental sulfur is an element.
sealover wrote:
Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)

Sulfur is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.

Nope. It can burn.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.

Guess there is no bond to anything, eh? Such as in lead sulfate?
sealover wrote:
Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.

Science is not a debate.
sealover wrote:
Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"

Google is not God. It is not science either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 07:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".

I misspoke previously. Now you have discarded any credibility you might have still had.

Let's relish this revealing moment.

1. You believe that "peer reviewed" has something to do with science.
2. You think that science is a paper.
3. You believe that there is a certain quantity of document titles that makes any assertion become true.

Allow me a moment to bask in the smoldering glow of your cognition acidification and its increase in bioavailability. I am seriously considering adding this to my sig block.

.


My first amendment right

Rights do not come from a piece of paper. They do not come from the Constitution. That is not the purpose of a constitution.
sealover wrote:
allows me to use any term I want without having to define it to Big Brother's satisfaction.

You are free to use any buzzwords you want. Of course, you look like an uneducated idjit when you do.
sealover wrote:
Is this that Communist Cancel Culture that I've been hearing about?

Nah. Just you acting like an uneducated idjit.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: organic sulfur is how you smell a gas leak10-03-2022 08:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:

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


Another revealing, teachable moment.

I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".[/quote]
Science is not a paper, website, book, or pamphlet. It has no voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.

No. It is not reduced at all.
sealover wrote:
Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.

No. Elemental sulfur is an element.
sealover wrote:
Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)

Sulfur is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.

Nope. It can burn.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.

Guess there is no bond to anything, eh? Such as in lead sulfate?
sealover wrote:
Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.

Science is not a debate.
sealover wrote:
Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"

Google is not God. It is not science either.[/quote]

____________________________________________________

As it will be relevant to any future discussion of biogeochemistry, it looks like we really do need to define a couple of terms.

Organic sulfur is sulfur contained in an organic compound. (e.g. methionine)

Just as organic nitrogen is nitrogen contained in an organic compound (e.g. all amino acids). Or organic phosphorus (e.g. phytic acid and a lot of pesticides).

When any organic compound is "mineralized", the carbon becomes inorganic carbon and the (sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) becomes the "mineral" form of that element.

It's a little touchier when discussing whether or not carbon itself is "organic".

Inorganic carbon is a real thing, no matter what the definition Gestapo say.

Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate.

Organic carbon is in a different oxidation state (i.e. reduced), compared to inorganic carbon (oxidized).
10-03-2022 08:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Inorganic carbon is a real thing, no matter what the definition Gestapo say.

You are certainly welcome to your definitions, but you need to provide an actual definition.

According to you, what distinguishes inorganic carbon from organic carbon?

sealover wrote:Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate.

Invalid. You can certainly list all the elements of the set, but you must list all the elements of the set. You can't just say "It includes X, Y, and Z." That does not define the set of inorganic carbon.

sealover wrote:Organic carbon is in a different oxidation state (i.e. reduced), compared to inorganic carbon (oxidized).

Well, what are those defining oxidation states, then?
10-03-2022 09:38
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Its still 8.3 at Trigg beach.Where are these micro sites that are actually acid now?
RE: acidic microsites - important model ecosystems10-03-2022 09:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
duncan61 wrote:
Its still 8.3 at Trigg beach.Where are these micro sites that are actually acid now?


Human activity has created most of those microsites, where untreated acid mine drainage effluent enters the sea. But these places only teach us about the damage caused.

Natural microsites where acid-enriched water seeps into the ocean have had a very long time to select for adapted communities of organisms.

In the Mediterranean, for example, where geologic water of exceptionally high carbon dioxide content enters the sea, scientists can study how the organisms have been able to adapt to the conditions. This has already led to selective breeding of more tolerant breeds to help restore biodiversity...
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity8812-05-2022 03:11
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification16310-05-2022 08:10
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1121-04-2022 16:30
CO2 ocean uptake30622-02-2021 04:08
The Atlantic Ocean Is Growing2530-01-2021 03:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact