Sounds Heard While Reading Hnmr Spec Charts:

the HOYO artificial upwelling project in japan...

such a rip to feed all the lil phytoplankton-ey bois all that phosphorous, nitrogen, calcium, and silicon to ultimately have growth limited by sunlight... like bruh...

so. geoengineering. seems pretty fricking cool, right?

and like, in concept, yeah. no, Fe fertilization ain't gonna solve global warming, and it will probably have some wonky ass impacts on nearby marine life, and i wouldn’t recommend doing it, but it’s theoretically very cool! and it's so much more elegant that other CO2 reduction schemes.

buuuuut.

then, you get to other types of geoengineering. and it's like—

toss a bomb into the ocean!!!

froth the ocean.

shoot aerosols into the atmosphere.

put hydrofluorocarbons into the atmosphere.

yeet dry ice into the atmosphere to precipitate snow

like. sir. no?????

cool facts

- AgNO3 (silver nitrate) clots blood! it's actually got several medical applications! (and is often in military first aid kits!)

- when oil spills happen, the bacteria which can metabolize polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) tend to rise in population, and those that cannot tend to decrease!

me talking about my research project to non-science folks: yeah, so i'm using bacteria to get rid of oil.

me talking about my research project to science folks/writing about it: i'm investigating how the pH of the solution marine bacteria are cultured in affects their ability to degrade hydrocarbons.

me talking about research in my head: how make bacteria bois the best souuuuuuup? do they like sour soup or no sour soup?

i love describing acid base buffers as "they turn the extra pH-ey things into the less pH-ey things."

i love that when writing cover letters, i have to keep going back to my resume, going "wait, what skills do i have again? oh right, i can read that kind of graph. let's put that down."

and this, kids, is why we don't write essays while consistently sleep deprived.

"Implicit in this argument about scientific truth is that scientific truth is predicated on conflict between multiple different theories, and approaches scientific truth as an absolute that can only be approached asymptotically through empiricism, a decidedly modern and western conception."

(my dear friend proof reading this) "bro u say 'scientific truth' three times in this sentence."

…and that’s ignoring the “multiple different theories” and all the other BS happening here….

large empires in history be like "we tried to solve a problem by creating an even larger one."

google's auto responses are killing me..

my friend (the sweetest angel who looked over my paper for me) has highlighted the work "Lamarckian," asking "what does this mean?"

google's auto responses?

"i don't know" and "sorry."

"what is this?" "i don't know. i wrote this paper. but i just... don't know."

alternatively.

"what is this" "sorry." no context. just sorry.

"what skills do i have" is of course followed by "what job do you want me to do, exactly? oh, right. that, the one that matches my supposed skillset. right. that."

i love that when writing cover letters, i have to keep going back to my resume, going "wait, what skills do i have again? oh right, i can read that kind of graph. let's put that down."