unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq)
That reaction is taught to High Schoolers and is hardly unique. It’s also quite literally the #2 thing explained in the link that @[email protected] gave you.
I’m familiar with this chemistry, but I wonder if you are? Carbon dioxide’s various reactions with water are normally in equilibrium with the atmosphere, meaning if you increase the carbon in the water, it will off-gas any extra carbon until it returns to equilibrium. Hence the need for some unique chemistry (or other process) to keep the carbon in place for an extended period.
Am I a science denier? Would I be a science denier if I questioned Exxon’s public statements about climate change in the 90s? What a silly question.
PS: there’s no chemistry in this link that I can find so I have no idea where you are getting that idea.
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq)
That reaction is taught to High Schoolers and is hardly unique. It’s also quite literally the #2 thing explained in the link that @[email protected] gave you.
Are you a science denier?
I’m familiar with this chemistry, but I wonder if you are? Carbon dioxide’s various reactions with water are normally in equilibrium with the atmosphere, meaning if you increase the carbon in the water, it will off-gas any extra carbon until it returns to equilibrium. Hence the need for some unique chemistry (or other process) to keep the carbon in place for an extended period.
Am I a science denier? Would I be a science denier if I questioned Exxon’s public statements about climate change in the 90s? What a silly question.
PS: there’s no chemistry in this link that I can find so I have no idea where you are getting that idea.