| RE: banded iron formations03-12-2023 08:53 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(616) |
sealover wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar
This is basically all true, except the assertion that "This is where the first oxygen came from".
Oxygen isn't easy to make. An electric current can transform water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but it costs energy. It is not spontaneous.
4000 million years ago the earth's crust was still very actively spewing reductants to the surface. Volcanic activity was widespread and frequent. The planet was still getting hit with the occasional massive asteroid. These asteroid strikes caused even more massive release of reductants to the surface. Indeed, they are the benchmark events for the big chert layers at the bottom of banded iron formation sequences.
By 3000 million years ago, things had calmed down. Volcanic active was much less intense than before. We were't getting hit by massive asteroids any more.
And the supply of high energy reductants such as hydrogen was being depleted.
The oldest banded iron formations, the "microbanded" ones have only two kinds of material in the repeating layers. Chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, and on and on and on. These older banded iron formations are useless as iron ore. The iron layers are barely a couple of millimeters thick. The repetition is so consistent that they were once believed to be "annual varves", representing yearly seasonal shifts in sediment deposition.
I'll have to get back to how intracellular photooxidation evolved into photosynthesis later. When microbanded banded iron formations were created, there were already at least two kinds of anoxygenic photosynthesis. At least two different kinds of anoxygenic photosynthetic communities were competing for reductants and sunlight.
During periods when hydrogen was most abundant, the photosynthetic community that used hydrogen as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis would win out. They got the most bang for the buck from the sunlight and they outcompeted the others. Their photosynthesis oxidized the hydrogen into water.
Water was the oxidized product of that photosynthesis.
When dihydrogen was less depleted by the photosynthetic bacteris, there was still plenty of hydrogen sulfide to use as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. A different community of photosynthetic bacteria could then become competitive. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide doesn't give as much bang for the buck from the sunlight, and they couldn't compete until the ones who depended on dihydrogen starved off.
Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant generates sulfate as the oxidized product of that photosynthesis. When the new community of H2S-based photosynthesis displaced the H2-based community, they changed the chemistry of the sea water by adding sulfate - an oxidant.
Anoxygenic photosynthesis using dihydrogen produces water as the oxidized product. Water isn't a very good oxidant. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide produces sulfate as the oxidized product. Sulfate is a mediocre oxidant, but it changed everything.
Each time the earth belched up another massive release of hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizing photosynthetic community became dominant. Their debris rained down on the sea floor, piling up organic carbon. And no good oxidants to do anything with it. Carbon piled up.
Each time photosynthesis eventually depleted the available hydrogen enough for the hydrogen sulfide oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria to become dominant, an oxidant became available to enable microorganisms to exploit carbon on the sea floor. Carbon still piled up. But some of it was being lost via sulfate reduction by bacteria. Iron pyrite, among others, was being formed among the organic carbon on the sea floor.
When the microbanded banded iron formation sediments were first deposited, they consisted of alternating layers. Pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, etc.
Over geologic time these carbon deposits became fossilized.
No, it wasn't "fossil fuel". The carbon got replaced by silica. The pure-silica chert layers of the banded iron formations are the fossils of the dead organic matter in the ancient seafloor.
Hmm, this is supposed to be about oxygen, so I'll jump ahead another 1000 million years.
The excited skin of the earth has calmed down over the years. Fewer and fewer reductants are being spewed out. Photosynthetic bacteria have had to evolve to use weaker and weaker reductants.
Dihydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide were the best ones available before, but they are getting harder to find.
Well, there are other forms of reduced sulfur besides hydrogen sulfide that could be used. And they were. Arsenic was widely available and arsenite was a good reductant. Ferrous iron was a pretty good reductant. New photosynthetic communities evolved to exploit the next best available reductants. Sulfate, arsenate, and ferric iron were the oxidized products of photosynthesis released into the environment.
Skip, Skip, Skip.... Well, now we're getting desperate. Harder and harder to find a good reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis.
What about nitrite? That's a tough nut to crack. Gonna require a lot of voltage.
And somebody did it. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generates nitrate as the oxidized product. Nitrate is a pretty powerful oxidant. But that took a lot of voltage from the photosystem to yank off its electron. Not much bang for the buck as far as energy captured during photosynthesis. But if nitrite is the only reductant in town, that's what you have to work with.
Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generated a powerful oxidant for microorganisms to exploit. Reductants that were too weak to be exploited using sulfate as oxidant could now be oxidized for profit using nitrate.
But even nitrite can be depleted. What's a photosynthetic bacteria to do? Well, that nitrite oxidizing photosystem generate a whole lot of voltage. Enough to oxidize water? Somebody did it. They used water as reductant in a photosystem that could generate so much voltage it could yank an electron right off a water molecule. The water falls apart and release oxygen. Oxygen is the oxidized product from using water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis.
Hardly any bang for the sunlight buck, compared to the old school anoxygenic photosynthesis using reductants much stronger than water. These oxygenic guys still can't compete in microsites where there is still enough hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, (organic-S, elemental-S, sulfite), arsenite, ferrous iron, or nitrite to support anoxygenic photosynthesis.
Check out the switch hitter. A blue green bacteria that is perfectly capable of doing oxygenic photosynthesis. Put him in a hydrogen rich environment and he'll turn off one of his photosystems. He won't squander sun energy just to tear water apart. He'll just take up the hydrogen directly from the sea and get a whole lot more bang for the buck in photosynthesis. |
| 03-12-2023 09:11 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(616) |
sealover wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Nice work.The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.When the sun shines they literally fart oxygen.This put oxygen in the atmosphere.They still exist in Shark bay as the shallow ocean has little movement and evaporates rapidly in the hot conditions that exist there nearly all year round.The hyper saline water did and still does not allow the snails and other lifeforms that developed later to consume the stromatolites that are still doing their thing.I have seen this in person.Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally respect your interest in paleobiogeochemistry.
So, banded iron formations are more than just the world's biggest deposits of iron ore.
They are among the oldest evidence of life on earth.
However, they represent photosynthetic ecosystem community succession.
Life was already pretty advanced by the time they formed.
The oldest banded iron formations are just shy of 4000 million years old.
They are the "microbanded" variety. No thick layers of high grade iron ore. Just a bunch of alternating thin (maybe 2 mm) layers.
They represent ecosystem community succession between just two types, back and forth. There are only two kinds of interlayered material. Pure chert and iron-and-sulfur-enriched chert.
The pure chert layer formed from sediment deposited following large release of hydrogen into the environment. Usually geologic activity, but sometimes following a big blow from an asteroid.
Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant does not generate any oxidant, just water.
When the hydrogen became depleted, a new photosynthetic community came in. They did anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant. This generates sulfate. Sulfate is an oxidant.
When hydrogen was abundant, there was no sulfate being generated. Organic matter piled on the sea floor with virtually no oxidants available to decompose it.
When hydrogen was depleted and a new photosynthetic community used hydrogen sulfide as reductant, the sulfate they generated was used as an oxidant in the sea floor. Sulfate reduction generated pyrite.
The alternating layers were originally deposited as pure organic matter or organic matter plus pyrite. Fossilization replaced carbon with silica.
The earth was very active in those days. It never took very long before a wave of geologic activity resulted in an abundance of hydrogen again.
About 1000-2000 million years later, very different kinds of banded iron formations were created. This was a much more complex community succession. There were more than two kinds of layers.
They always begin at the bottom with layers of pure chert, just under layers of chert plus iron and sulfur.
But then there are overlying layers of increasing iron content, with iron in an increasingly oxidized state. What the miners coveted were the top layers of each sequence, massive deposits of the purest ore.
Every once in a while, a huge asteroid would still strike and begin another sequence.
But now there wasn't going to be a rapid resupply in the relatively near future.
Unlike the microbanded iron formations, there was enough time for the hydrogen sulfide to run out as the next best reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. When they had to resort to iron reduction, using ferrous iron as reductant, they generated ferric iron as the oxidized product.
Ferric iron is a more powerful oxidant than sulfate. The chemistry of the sediments in the banded iron formations reflects the presence of this more powerful oxidant. A third distinct layer type in every sequence.
When ferric iron ran out, they resorted to using arsenite or nitrite as reductants for anoxygenic photosynthesis. This generated arsenate and nitrate, which are more powerful oxidants than sulfate or ferric iron. A fourth distinct layer type in many sequences.
When all the available reductants ran out, photosynthetic communities had to resort to oxygenic photosynthesis. Oxygenic photosynthesis using water as reductant generates oxygen, a very powerful oxidant. The sediments deposited in the presence of this powerful oxidant are quite distinct from those that underly them.
As I recall, the three oldest banded iron formations have been dated around 3800-3900 million years old. |
| RE: pH 8.2, 2300 microequivalents per liter05-12-2023 21:00 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(616) |
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
LOL who exactly would decide what the PH of the ocean should be and was before the industrial revolution?
You?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The term "pH" does not appear in the post anywhere.
The response refers ONLY to "PH" and makes no reference to alkalinity.
A typical sample of sea water has pH about 8.2, and 2300 microequivalents per liter alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity).
One typical liter of sea water can neutralize 2300 microequivalents of acid in an alkalinity titration test.
Measuring the pH isn't very revealing, as the depletion of alkalinity only brings about very small change to pH.
The term "acidification" is put in quotation marks because the ocean isn't becoming "acidic" at all. The alkalinity is being depleted.
Alkalinity is a measurable parameter, but it is NOT pH.
Whether or not the pH is greater than 7 or less than 7 does not measure or determine alkalinity.
A substance is "alkaline" if the pH is greater than 7.
That is very different than alkalinity.
The statement "you cannot acidify an alkaline" is meaningless, because "alkaline" is an adjective, not a noun.
LOL who taught you to read so well that you could somehow see "PH"? |
| 05-12-2023 22:09 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5725) |
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
LOL who exactly would decide what the PH of the ocean should be and was before the industrial revolution?
You?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The term "pH" does not appear in the post anywhere.
The response refers ONLY to "PH" and makes no reference to alkalinity.
A typical sample of sea water has pH about 8.2, and 2300 microequivalents per liter alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity).
One typical liter of sea water can neutralize 2300 microequivalents of acid in an alkalinity titration test.
Measuring the pH isn't very revealing, as the depletion of alkalinity only brings about very small change to pH.
The term "acidification" is put in quotation marks because the ocean isn't becoming "acidic" at all. The alkalinity is being depleted.
Alkalinity is a measurable parameter, but it is NOT pH.
Whether or not the pH is greater than 7 or less than 7 does not measure or determine alkalinity.
A substance is "alkaline" if the pH is greater than 7.
That is very different than alkalinity.
The statement "you cannot acidify an alkaline" is meaningless, because "alkaline" is an adjective, not a noun.
LOL who taught you to read so well that you could somehow see "PH"?
How do the millions of gallons of acid pouring into the oceans by natural hydrothermal vents affect the PH of the oceans?
Yawn
PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| RE: still available for discussion18-04-2024 05:35 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
There has been at least a 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity, equivalents per liter).
Of particular concern is the reduction in carbonate ion available for shell formation.
Potential remediation could employ natural wetlands to increase their alkalinity input.
Drained wetlands could be managed to reduce their discharge of sulfuric acid, and increase discharge of alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge.
Submerged wetlands could be managed to become a major source of new alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) entering the sea. |
| 20-04-2024 00:23 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21665) |
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,
Climate cannot change. There is nothing to 'mitigate'.
sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.
What atmospheric concentrations of carbon? Carbon is a solid.
sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,
Fossils aren't used as fuel.
sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Silt and sediments flow the sea naturally.
sealover wrote:
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Alkalinity is not a substance or chemical.
sealover wrote:
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
Carbon isn't alkaline. Carbon isn't organic. Neither is carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
Alkalinity is not a substance or chemical.
sealover wrote:
There has been at least a 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity, equivalents per liter).
It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
Of particular concern is the reduction in carbonate ion available for shell formation.
Shells aren't made of any carbonate.
sealover wrote:
Potential remediation could employ natural wetlands to increase their alkalinity input.
Alkalinity is not a substance or a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Drained wetlands could be managed to reduce their discharge of sulfuric acid, and increase discharge of alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge.
Alkalinity is not a substance nor a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Submerged wetlands could be managed to become a major source of new alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) entering the sea.
Alkalinity is not a substance nor a chemical.
There is no such thing as Terraforming (other than a piece of software), moron. You've been watching too many science fiction shows.
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 20-04-2024 00:55 |
| RE: thread topic reminder28-04-2024 00:11 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
The noun "alkalinity" has almost nothing to do with the adjective "alkaline".
"Alkaline" describes a substance with pH greater than 7.
"Alkalinity" is a measurable parameter that quantifies acid neutralizing capacity.
Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter of hydrogen ion that can be neutralized by the solution, or as grams or milligrams calcium carbon equivalents per liter.
A mole of calcium carbonate weighs 100 grams and can neutralize 2 moles of hydrogen ion. The conversion factor for the two different units is 50.
A pH 6 citrate buffer is not "alkaline", but has MUCH higher alkalinity than a solution of sodium hydroxide at pH 8, which IS "alkaline".
A common misconception is that pH and alkalinity are somehow the same thing. |
| 28-04-2024 01:20 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14470) |
sealover wrote: The noun "alkalinity" has almost nothing to do with the adjective "alkaline". "Alkaline" describes a substance with pH greater than 7.
I remember this discussion the first time you presented it. You had a total meltdown when I asked you a clarification question. Instead of answering my question, you simply redoubled your efforts to belittle me for asking a question. Let's rehash what happened:
sealover wrote: "Alkalinity" is a measurable parameter that quantifies acid neutralizing capacity.
Is "acidity" a measurable parameter that quantifies alkaline-neutralizing capacity?
This is where you totally lost it last time.
sealover wrote: Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter of hydrogen ion that can be neutralized by the solution, or as grams or milligrams calcium carbon equivalents per liter.
How is acidity reported? |
| 29-04-2024 00:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21665) |
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,
Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
An acid is not an alkaline. Ocean water is not acidic.
sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy
Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy' except as a religious artifact.
sealover wrote:
and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
No need. Nature does it for you. Define what is 'required'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Alkalinity is not a substance. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy.
Oxidation is not reduction.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction by bacteria
Oxidation is not reduction.
sealover wrote:
generates inorganic carbon
Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
alkalinity
No such word except as a religious artifact. Alkalinity is not a substance.
sealover wrote:
rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide. It is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.
sealover wrote:
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
Alkalinity is not a substance. Carbon is not organic. Oxidation is not reduction. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
The noun "alkalinity" has almost nothing to do with the adjective "alkaline".
No such noun.
sealover wrote:
"Alkaline" describes a substance with pH greater than 7.
So?
sealover wrote:
"Alkalinity" is a measurable parameter that quantifies acid neutralizing capacity.
No such 'parameter' or quantity called 'alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter of hydrogen ion that can be neutralized by the solution, or as grams or milligrams calcium carbon equivalents per liter.
Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight.
sealover wrote:
A pH 6 citrate buffer is not "alkaline", but has MUCH higher alkalinity than a solution of sodium hydroxide at pH 8, which IS "alkaline".
An acid is not an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
A common misconception is that pH and alkalinity are somehow the same thing.
Alkalinity is not a substance or a valid word. Buzzword fallacy.
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: 21624 posts.29-04-2024 04:38 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(616) |
21624 posts.
Are they ALL as good as this one?
Nobody ever seems to respond to them.
So let me be one of the very few who actually reads one of your posts and responds to it.
"Climate cannot change"
Tell that to the climate. And try to convince people not to believe their own lying eyes as they see extreme weather events become more and more frequent.
"Carbon is not carbon dioxide"
Perhaps you should read more. "Carbon footprint" is not a reference to carbon as an element. "Carbon neutral" is not either. Indeed, it is quite common to reference carbon dioxide as simply "carbon".
"Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn"
Is it possible that you really don't know what the term "fossil fuel" means?
"An acid is not an alkaline. Ocean water is not acidic."
Actually, NOTHING is "an alkaline". Alkaline is not a noun. I don't see what this is a response to. Is somebody claiming that ocean water is acidic?
Too many stupid claims to respond to so I'll just select a few more.
"Alkalinity is not a substance." Repeated multiple times.
No, it is not. However, aqueous solutions are substances that almost always have some alkalinity.
"Oxidation is not reduction." Said repeatedly.
A truly brilliant insight... to counter which claim? Was something said that could be interpreted to imply that oxidation IS reduction?
"Carbon is not organic." Repeatedly said.
Most of the world's carbon is, in fact, inorganic.
A chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically oxidized form (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion) is defined as "inorganic carbon".
On the other hand, while it is less than half the total carbon in the world, there is a whole lot of organic carbon out there.
An organic chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically reduced form is defined as "organic carbon"
Are you sure that your company doesn't sell "organic carbon" analyzers?
"No such 'parameter' or quantity called 'alkalinity'."
Perhaps you should learn to read. In the US, it is reported as milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents. I have authored many water quality reports where we paid a lab to measure this non existent parameter. We had to get it speciated as well. So we had four numbers to work with.
Total alkalinity = acid neutralizing capacity from all contributing oxyanions.
Hydroxide alkalinity = that tiny fraction of total alkalinity arising from hydroxide ions
Bicarbonate alkalinity = usually the lion's share of total alkalinity, it is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from bicarbonate ions.
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3
Carbonate alkalinity = that part of total acid neutralizing capacity arising from carbonate ions.
CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- (one proton neutralized) and then
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 (a second proton neutralized)
It has been long known that other oxyanions such as phosphate, silicate, borate, and many other oxyanions contribute to acid neutralizing capacity. But they are so much less than 1% of the total that they are ignored.
On the other hand, water chemists now deeply regret that they didn't take organic alkalinity seriously enough.
Organic oxyanions, such as citrate, turn out to be a significant contributor to total alkalinity in many waters.
"Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight."
Actually, the oxyanions that contribute alkalinity ALL have some weight.
"An acid is not an alkaline."
The same meaningless sentence as before. NOTHING is "an alkaline"
"Alkalinity is not a substance or a valid word"
I guess you will have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks AND the dictionary, because they are under the impression that is IS a valid word.
I'm sure that there will be a very lengthy response to this, but this is the last time I will bother responding to or even reading another parrot poop post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios,
Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.
Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
An acid is not an alkaline. Ocean water is not acidic.
sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy
Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy' except as a religious artifact.
sealover wrote:
and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
No need. Nature does it for you. Define what is 'required'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Alkalinity is not a substance. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy.
Oxidation is not reduction.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction by bacteria
Oxidation is not reduction.
sealover wrote:
generates inorganic carbon
Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
alkalinity
No such word except as a religious artifact. Alkalinity is not a substance.
sealover wrote:
rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide. It is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.
sealover wrote:
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction.
Alkalinity is not a substance. Carbon is not organic. Oxidation is not reduction. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
The noun "alkalinity" has almost nothing to do with the adjective "alkaline".
No such noun.
sealover wrote:
"Alkaline" describes a substance with pH greater than 7.
So?
sealover wrote:
"Alkalinity" is a measurable parameter that quantifies acid neutralizing capacity.
No such 'parameter' or quantity called 'alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter of hydrogen ion that can be neutralized by the solution, or as grams or milligrams calcium carbon equivalents per liter.
Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight.
sealover wrote:
A pH 6 citrate buffer is not "alkaline", but has MUCH higher alkalinity than a solution of sodium hydroxide at pH 8, which IS "alkaline".
An acid is not an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
A common misconception is that pH and alkalinity are somehow the same thing.
Alkalinity is not a substance or a valid word. Buzzword fallacy. |
| 29-04-2024 06:33 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14470) |
Im a BM wrote: "Climate cannot change" Tell that to the climate.
Brilliant! "There is no Bigfoot." "Tell that to Bigfoot." You're a genius.
Im a BM wrote: And try to convince people not to believe their own lying eyes as they see extreme weather events become more and more frequent.
Brilliant! Convince people to trust you that they really are seeing what they are not seeing, especially as they fail to see increases of the totally undefined. You're a genius.
Im a BM wrote: "Carbon footprint" is not a reference to carbon as an element.
"Carbon footprint" is not a reference to anything real. We could go on all day about all the things to which "carbon footprint" is not a reference while you avoid altogether any unambiguous definition thereof. Perhaps we're talking about the Carbon Bigfoot with its carbon footprint.
Im a BM wrote: "Carbon neutral" is not either.
Correct. It's not even a term in chemistry, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Im a BM wrote: Indeed, it is quite common to reference carbon dioxide as simply "carbon".
Correct. It's entirely common for scientifically illiterate laymen to equivocate egregiously, such as referring to CO2 as simply C, or referring to hydrocarbons as fossils ... or as fuel for fossils. Again, I wouldn't expect you to understand why such errors are heinous. Since you are a layman, I can understand why you don't know the definition of acidity.
I do think it's cute the way you try to play along, though. We're an inclusive group here and we want you to "participate."
Im a BM wrote: Actually, NOTHING is "an alkaline". Alkaline is not a noun.
Actually, there is NO LANGUANGE "Spanish." Spanish is not a noun.
Actually, NOBODY is a "homosexual." Homosexual is not a noun.
Actually, NOBODY is a "Christian." Christian is not a noun.
Actually, NOTHING is a "painting." Painting is not a noun.
Im a BM wrote: I don't see what this is a response to. Is somebody claiming that ocean water is acidic?
Nope. Not only will you not respond to clarification questions, you refuse to learn to read so that you won't inadvertently answer any questions directed your way. Otherwise, it was too easy and straightforward.
Im a BM wrote: "Carbon is not organic." Repeatedly said. Most of the world's carbon is, in fact, inorganic.
More gibberish you just pulled out of your ass. This is where you pull the rug out from under yourself. Elements are elements and are neither organic nor inorganic. I shouldn't have to be teaching you this. Compounds, yes, can be either organic or inorganic, but elements cannot.
Im a BM wrote: A chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically oxidized form (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion) is defined as "inorganic carbon".
A chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that neither "organic carbon" nor "inorganic carbon" is even a term in chemistry. I have my textbook open coincidentally and you'll be happy to know that I can read it. Nope, there is no such term, as I already knew. Did you read that term on Wikipedia?
Why, yes you did. Right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_organic_carbon
Shame on you! Actual scientists don't go frantically looking up terms on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a non-authoritative source that is error-filled. You screwed the pooch on that one.
Im a BM wrote: An organic chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically reduced form is defined as "organic carbon"
Again, the term "organic carbon" doesn't even appear, because it's not a thing. "Reduction" is oxidation reduction. While I suppose that a substance could potentially be reduced to mere carbon, the correct wording would be "reduced to carbon," not "organic carbon."
Do you have some examples of what you're talking about?
Im a BM wrote: Are you sure that your company doesn't sell "organic carbon" analyzers?
I believe Into the Night is looking at opening a new line of gamma specs. He tried making some for inorganic carbon, but found that there isn't any.
Im a BM wrote: In the US, it is reported as milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents. I have authored many water quality reports where we paid a lab to measure this non existent parameter.
Please post a few of these reports that you authored. [hint: we already know your name][hint: shouldn't you be bitching right about now about how you doxxed yourself?]
Im a BM wrote: Total alkalinity = acid neutralizing capacity from all contributing oxyanions.
Hydroxide alkalinity = tiny fraction of total alkalinity arising from hydroxide ions
Bicarbonate alkalinity = usually the lion's share of total alkalinity, it is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from bicarbonate ions.
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3
Carbonate alkalinity = that part of total acid neutralizing capacity arising from carbonate ions.
CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- (one proton neutralized) and then
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 (a second proton neutralized)
Good stuff. When you aren't vomitting climate gibberbabble, you sometimes actually get to something value-added. Well done.
Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, water chemists now deeply regret that they didn't take organic alkalinity seriously enough.
What makes you say that? |
| 29-04-2024 09:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21665) |
Im a BM wrote:
21624 posts.
Are they ALL as good as this one?
Nobody ever seems to respond to them.
So you are a nobody. You just called yourself one. I agree.
Im a BM wrote:
So let me be one of the very few who actually reads one of your posts and responds to it.
Okay, Nobody.
Im a BM wrote:
"Climate cannot change"
Tell that to the climate.
Climate has no ears. It cannot hear me or you.
Im a BM wrote:
And try to convince people not to believe their own lying eyes as they see extreme weather events become more and more frequent.
Weather is not climate. Define 'extreme weather'. You cannot measure what you cannot define.
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon is not carbon dioxide"
Perhaps you should read more. "Carbon footprint" is not a reference to carbon as an element. "Carbon neutral" is not either. Indeed, it is quite common to reference carbon dioxide as simply "carbon".
Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
Im a BM wrote:
"Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn"
Is it possible that you really don't know what the term "fossil fuel" means?
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. No fossils are used as fuel.
Im a BM wrote:
"An acid is not an alkaline. Ocean water is not acidic."
Actually, NOTHING is "an alkaline". Alkaline is not a noun.
Alkaline is a noun.
Im a BM wrote:
I don't see what this is a response to. Is somebody claiming that ocean water is acidic?
YOU ARE.
Im a BM wrote:
Too many stupid claims to respond to so I'll just select a few more.
"Alkalinity is not a substance." Repeated multiple times.
No, it is not. However, aqueous solutions are substances that almost always have some alkalinity.
Alkalinity is not a substance.
Im a BM wrote:
"Oxidation is not reduction." Said repeatedly.
A truly brilliant insight... to counter which claim? Was something said that could be interpreted to imply that oxidation IS reduction?
YOU said it. Don't try to deny your own posts.
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbon is not organic." Repeatedly said.
Most of the world's carbon is, in fact, inorganic.
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
A chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically oxidized form (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion) is defined as "inorganic carbon".
Chemistry is not a textbook. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. It is not any carbonate.
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, while it is less than half the total carbon in the world, there is a whole lot of organic carbon out there.
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
An organic chemistry textbook, if you knew how to read one, would explain to you that carbon in chemically reduced form is defined as "organic carbon"
Carbon is not chemically reduced.
Im a BM wrote:
Are you sure that your company doesn't sell "organic carbon" analyzers?
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
"No such 'parameter' or quantity called 'alkalinity'."
Perhaps you should learn to read. In the US, it is reported as milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents. I have authored many water quality reports where we paid a lab to measure this non existent parameter. We had to get it speciated as well. So we had four numbers to work with.
Total alkalinity = acid neutralizing capacity from all contributing oxyanions.
Hydroxide alkalinity = that tiny fraction of total alkalinity arising from hydroxide ions
Bicarbonate alkalinity = usually the lion's share of total alkalinity, it is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from bicarbonate ions.
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3
Carbonate alkalinity = that part of total acid neutralizing capacity arising from carbonate ions.
CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- (one proton neutralized) and then
HCO3- + H+ = H2CO3 (a second proton neutralized)
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
It has been long known that other oxyanions such as phosphate, silicate, borate, and many other oxyanions contribute to acid neutralizing capacity. But they are so much less than 1% of the total that they are ignored.
Fiction won't help you. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, water chemists now deeply regret that they didn't take organic alkalinity seriously enough.
There is no such thing as 'organic alkalinity'. Alkalinity is not a substance.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic oxyanions, such as citrate, turn out to be a significant contributor to total alkalinity in many waters.
No such thing as alkalinity. There is no such chemical as an 'organic oxyanion' or 'citrate'.
Im a BM wrote:
"Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight."
Actually, the oxyanions that contribute alkalinity ALL have some weight.
Alkalinity is not a substance. It has no weight.
Im a BM wrote:
"An acid is not an alkaline."
The same meaningless sentence as before. NOTHING is "an alkaline"
There are quite a few alkali, just as there are quite a few acids.
Im a BM wrote:
"Alkalinity is not a substance or a valid word"
I guess you will have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks AND the dictionary, because they are under the impression that is IS a valid word.
Omniscience fallacy. False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define any word. You don't get to quote every dictionary or textbook.
Chemistry is not a dictionary nor a textbook.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure that there will be a very lengthy response to this, but this is the last time I will bother responding to or even reading another parrot poop post.
Bulverism fallacy...and a lie.
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: 1st post of thread01-05-2024 22:10 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction |
| RE: 2nd post of thread01-05-2024 22:11 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
One geoengineering approach to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity to the ocean is simply to better manage them.
Rising sea level and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.
As sea level rises, the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced. There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments. Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands. Once the rising sea level completely submerges the coastal wetland, there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.
When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts. Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.
When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid. These "acid sulfate soils" develop very low pH. They also export a lot of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter to surface waters. Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity for the sea as groundwater discharge now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water. |
| RE: 3rd post of thread01-05-2024 22:12 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.
Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.
It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.
Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.
The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea. |
| RE: 4th post of thread01-05-2024 22:13 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1275) |
Geoengineering to acquire alkalinity for the sea from carbon stored in wetlands can be done offshore.
The waterlogged, low oxygen soil conditions of wetlands prevent aerobic oxidation of organic matter by micro organisms. Dead organic matter in the wetland soil has centuries long residence time. Centuries of peat accumulation and carbon rich sediment can pile up to great depth.
Rising sea level has submerged large areas of coastal wetlands. These submerged lands no longer support wetland photosynthesis to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They no longer pile up new organic matter. They no longer discharge alkalinity to the sea from groundwater flows.
However, these areas are still an enormous reservoir of organic carbon stored in shallow sediments just below the surface of the sea. These deposits of pre-fossil fuel (i.e. wetland soil carbon not yet transformed by the earth into coal) contain many, many gigatons of stored organic carbon.
Offshore drilling of these pre-fossil fuel deposits could enable their exploitation as a nearly limitless source of alkalinity for the sea. Sea water could be pumped into the underlying sediments under pressure. This will drive sulfate in to the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment. Sulfate reduction will generate alkalinity which would be driven out into the sea as submarine groundwater discharge to marine ecosystems. Sufficient alkalinity for the sea could be generated long before the pre-fossil fuel runs out. |
| 01-05-2024 23:32 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14470) |
sealover wrote: Geoengineering to acquire alkalinity for the sea from carbon stored in wetlands can be done offshore.
Great news! The ocean requires no additional alkalinity.
sealover wrote: The waterlogged, low oxygen soil conditions of wetlands prevent aerobic oxidation of organic matter by micro organisms.
Cry me a fuqqing river.
sealover wrote: Dead organic matter in the wetland soil has centuries long residence time. Centuries of peat accumulation and carbon rich sediment can pile up to great depth.
Why should anyone believe this?
sealover wrote: Rising sea level has submerged large areas of coastal wetlands.
Photgraphic evidence clearly shows that the ocean hasn't risen to any discernible extent since 1890, and physics precludes any rational adult from believing that the ocean ever rose to any discernible extent before that.
sealover wrote: These submerged lands no longer support wetland photosynthesis to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Since they were always submerged, they never supported wetland photosynthesis in the first place.
[b] These deposits of pre-fossil fuel (i.e. wetland soil carbon not yet transformed by the earth into coal) contain many, many gigatons of stored organic carbon.
The notion that you are some sort of chemist is absurd. |
| 02-05-2024 04:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21665) |
sealover wrote:
Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline.
Climate cannot change.
What is the atmospheric concentration of carbon?
sealover wrote:
Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow,
Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.
sealover wrote:
ocean "acidification"
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
(i.e. depletion of alkalinity)
No such word.
sealover wrote:
would continue to get worse for decades to come.
Your meaningless buzzwords will get worse?
sealover wrote:
Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy
There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. The environment is not a cancer.
sealover wrote:
and provide exogenous alkalinity
No such word as 'exogenous alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required.
Ocean water is already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge.
Ocean water is already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant
Sulfate is not an oxidant. Sulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
to oxidize organic carbon
Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
and acquire energy.
TANSTAAFL. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction
You cannot reduce 'sulfate'. It is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
by bacteria generates inorganic carbon
Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
alkalinity
No such word.
sealover wrote:
rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches
No such thing.
sealover wrote:
that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity
No such word.
sealover wrote:
for the sea
The oceans are already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon
Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
via microbial sulfate reduction
You cannot reduce sulfate. Sulfate is not a chemical.
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 |
| 02-05-2024 05:09 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21665) |
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach
No such word.
sealover wrote:
to enable wetlands to generate and discharge alkalinity
No such word.
sealover wrote:
to the ocean is simply to better manage them.
The ocean is already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Rising sea level
What 'rising sea level'? It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
and drainage for agriculture has greatly decreased the output of alkalinity from coastal wetlands.
No such word.
sealover wrote:
As sea level rises,
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
sealover wrote:
the distance between low tide and ground surface elevation is reduced.
There is no uniform 'ground surface elevation'.
sealover wrote:
There is now less hydraulic gradient during the drainage phase to drive sulfate into low oxygen, organic carbon rich sediments.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. You cannot claim high and low oxygen in the same place at the same time. You are still locked in that paradox.
sealover wrote:
Tidal pumping is no longer as effective as it used to be to extract alkalinity from coastal wetlands.
No such word.
sealover wrote:
Once the rising sea level
It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
completely submerges the coastal wetland,
Nothing is getting submerged.
sealover wrote:
there is no longer any hydraulic gradient or tidal pumping at all to allow sulfate to enter the low oxygen, carbon rich sediment.
Sulfate is not a chemical. You are still locked in that paradox.
sealover wrote:
When wetlands are drained for agriculture the hydraulic gradient completely shifts. Water is continuously drained from the topsoil into deep drainage ditches, then pumped uphill into adjacent surface water. The elevation of the recharge water is higher than the water table in the field below the aerobic topsoil. There is upward pressure from recharge water pushing groundwater up toward the drained topsoil, to then be intercepted, drained off, and pumped up to the river.
When wetland soils are drained, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria then generate sulfuric acid. These "acid sulfate soils" develop very low pH. They also export a lot of acidity, salinity, and dissolved organic matter to surface waters.
An acid is not a salt. Exporting to yourself is not possible.
sealover wrote:
Wetlands that previously generated alkalinity
No such word.
sealover wrote:
for the sea as groundwater discharge now export sulfuric-acid-enriched drainage to surface water.
You cannot export anything to 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 |
| 02-05-2024 05:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21665) |
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach
No such word.
sealover wrote:
to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity
No such word.
sealover wrote:
for the sea
The ocean is already alkaline.
sealover wrote:
would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Why would you want to do that?
sealover wrote:
Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.
No such word. Coastal deserts are already exposed to sea water. That's what 'coastal' means!
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage.
What 'acid mine drainage'?
sealover wrote:
Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. There is no such word as biogeochemical. Alkali are not a salt. Acids are not a salt.
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 |
