Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
Alternative Google inquiry about the pH buffering capacity of "water itself".

Question for Google: What percentage of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from water itself?

As I predicted it would, Google answered with: "The vast majority of the ocean's pH buffering capacity (over 99%) arises from dissolved chemical species, primarily the CARBONATE SYSTEM, not the water molecules themselves. The contribution from autoionization of water is negligible in comparison."

Although this is correct, I am disappointed that Google didn't offer a percentage value. It would have been fun to see it say, "Less than 0.01% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from 'water itself'". "Negligible" is correct, but not a number.

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
You are not Google.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
You are not Google.

"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

Like almost every chemistry assertion made by Into the Night, this is NOT correct.

Question for Google: "Is it possible for pH to be less than 1?"

Google says: "Yes, pH can be less than 1, and even negative, because the pH scale is logarithmic and not limited to 0-14; it occurs with highly concentrated strong acids (like > 1 M HCl), where the hydrogen ion concentration exceeds 1 mol/L, mathematically resulting in a negative pH value, though practical measurement with standard probes becomes difficult."

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
You are not Google.

"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

Like almost every chemistry assertion made by Into the Night, this is NOT correct.

Question for Google: "Is it possible for pH to be less than 1?"

Google says: "Yes, pH can be less than 1, and even negative, because the pH scale is logarithmic and not limited to 0-14; it occurs with highly concentrated strong acids (like > 1 M HCl), where the hydrogen ion concentration exceeds 1 mol/L, mathematically resulting in a negative pH value, though practical measurement with standard probes becomes difficult."

Not possible.
You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Google does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous definition of "God".

However, Google has access to accurate information about chemistry from legitimate "chemists".

Splitting hairs on what qualifies as an "excellent buffer", as Into the Night assert that water is an "excellent buffer" to maintain the alkaline pH of the ocean.

Question for Google:

"Is it true that 'water itself is a buffer for acid'?"


Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic. True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
You are not Google.

"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

Like almost every chemistry assertion made by Into the Night, this is NOT correct.

Question for Google: "Is it possible for pH to be less than 1?"

Google says: "Yes, pH can be less than 1, and even negative, because the pH scale is logarithmic and not limited to 0-14; it occurs with highly concentrated strong acids (like > 1 M HCl), where the hydrogen ion concentration exceeds 1 mol/L, mathematically resulting in a negative pH value, though practical measurement with standard probes becomes difficult."

Not possible.
You are not Google.

23,442 posts, so far, by Into the Night.

Do they ALL display as much knowledge of science as THIS one?

Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know that I am not Google?

You don't even know what Google IS.

Do you miss your old troll buddies? Wasn't it fun when a new member posted something and used the words "climate change"? You guys all charged in with the "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" shit. Along with the "You are a scientifically illiterate moron", "you deny science", "you don't even know what science is"

SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!

RQAA forever!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know that I am not Google?

You don't even know what Google IS.

Do you miss your old troll buddies? Wasn't it fun when a new member posted something and used the words "climate change"? You guys all charged in with the "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" shit. Along with the "You are a scientifically illiterate moron", "you deny science", "you don't even know what science is"

SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL!

RQAA forever!

Google is not a person.
Climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL if he honestly believes himself to be a "chemist".

This thread has been up for 20 days and gotten 127 replies.

Not ONE post on this thread is an answer to the question, "Does ANYONE believe ITN is a 'chemist'?"

NOBODY is volunteering their endorsement for ITN's false claim.

Not one, other than ITN himself, says they believe Into the Night is a "chemist".

Not even IBdaMann!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL if he honestly believes himself to be a "chemist".

This thread has been up for 20 days and gotten 127 replies.

Not ONE post on this thread is an answer to the question, "Does ANYONE believe ITN is a 'chemist'?"

NOBODY is volunteering their endorsement for ITN's false claim.

Not one, other than ITN himself, says they believe Into the Night is a "chemist".

Not even IBdaMann!

Chemistry is not a vote, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL if he honestly believes himself to be a "chemist".

This thread has been up for 20 days and gotten 127 replies.

Not ONE post on this thread is an answer to the question, "Does ANYONE believe ITN is a 'chemist'?"

NOBODY is volunteering their endorsement for ITN's false claim.

Not one, other than ITN himself, says they believe Into the Night is a "chemist".

Not even IBdaMann!

Chemistry is not a vote, Robert.

Add one more item to the list of all the things that chemistry is NOT.

Do you have any idea what chemistry IS?

It's a SECRET, right?

No, wait.. It's something you already explained clearly and completely, years ago, right here in a post SOMEWHERE, so "RQAA".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is DELUSIONAL if he honestly believes himself to be a "chemist".

This thread has been up for 20 days and gotten 127 replies.

Not ONE post on this thread is an answer to the question, "Does ANYONE believe ITN is a 'chemist'?"

NOBODY is volunteering their endorsement for ITN's false claim.

Not one, other than ITN himself, says they believe Into the Night is a "chemist".

Not even IBdaMann!

Chemistry is not a vote, Robert.

Add one more item to the list of all the things that chemistry is NOT.

Do you have any idea what chemistry IS?

It's a SECRET, right?

No, wait.. It's something you already explained clearly and completely, years ago, right here in a post SOMEWHERE, so "RQAA".

RQAA. I already know you don't know what chemistry is. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:
And you really believe that YOU are a "chemist"?

I don't.

I see no evidence that anyone else does either. Not even your troll buddies.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
And you really believe that YOU are a "chemist"?

I don't.

I see no evidence that anyone else does either. Not even your troll buddies.

Chemistry is not a vote.

Im a BM wrote:

No, chemistry is not, technically, a "vote".

Im a BM wrote:

Protecting your freedom of speech means nobody should be allowed to stop you from making the FALSE claim to have earned the professional title of "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Signing an employment document with such a false claim might get him in trouble.

Im a BM wrote:
Especially if they hired him without bothering to check if he could even give them the simplest, maybe one or two sentence explanation of what any chemistry term actually means.

Im a BM wrote:
As opposed to offering a long list of everything that the term does NOT mean.

Im a BM wrote:
A federal license to play with fireworks isn't even close to a legitimate credential to qualify as what everyone ELSE calls a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
I'm still not convinced ITN actually BELIEVES he is a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Is he really that delusional, or just a pathological liar. His other posts display more dishonesty than mental illness, but it's a close call.

Im a BM wrote:And you really believe that YOU are a "chemist"?
I don't.

Im a BM wrote: No, chemistry is not, technically, a "vote".

Im a BM wrote:Signing an employment document with such a false claim might get him in trouble. Especially if they hired him without bothering to check if he could even give them the simplest, maybe one or two sentence explanation of what any chemistry term actually means. As opposed to offering a long list of everything that the term does NOT mean.

Im a BM wrote:A federal license to play with fireworks isn't even close to a legitimate credential to qualify as what everyone ELSE calls a "chemist".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:And you really believe that YOU are a "chemist"?
I don't.

Have you had an opportunity to look up "evaporation"? It's pretty wild.

Im a BM wrote: No, chemistry is not, technically, a "vote".

Did you get a chance to look up chemistry "definitions"? Some of them are pretty important and you really should get familiar with them, e.g. "molecule" and "buffering."

Im a BM wrote:Signing an employment document with such a false claim might get him in trouble. Especially if they hired him without bothering to check if he could even give them the simplest, maybe one or two sentence explanation of what any chemistry term actually means. As opposed to offering a long list of everything that the term does NOT mean.

You and I can help him out, right? I'll go first ...

Into the Night, a "molecule" is more than one atom joined together by chemical bonds. An example would be, oh I don't know ... a gold nugget comes to mind.

Im a BM wrote:A federal license to play with fireworks isn't even close to a legitimate credential to qualify as what everyone ELSE calls a "chemist".

It appears that we all finally agree that a fireworks license is way cooler.



Robert, your turn.

Im a BM wrote: After [trying to read] this more than once,

Im a BM wrote: I don't see anything about why any rational adult should believe that ITN is some kind of legitimate "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:If this is a testimonial or endorsement of ITN's chemistry competence, it's hard to see it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: After [trying to read] this more than once,

If I didn't dumb it down enough, I know of a few things I haven't tried yet.

Im a BM wrote: I don't see anything about why any rational adult should believe that ITN is some kind of legitimate "chemist".

Aaaahhh, I see. You think that because Into the Night defines his terms unambiguously that there's no way he can be a member of your congregation. I get it. The good news is that Into the Night flat out denies being a Bigamygeochemical. Just ask him. I think you had a tad bit of a miscommunication, that's all.

Im a BM wrote:If this is a testimonial or endorsement of ITN's chemistry competence, it's hard to see it.

It's an endorsement of cool fireworks. Where do I sign?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: After [trying to read] this more than once,

If I didn't dumb it down enough, I know of a few things I haven't tried yet.

Im a BM wrote: I don't see anything about why any rational adult should believe that ITN is some kind of legitimate "chemist".

Aaaahhh, I see. You think that because Into the Night defines his terms unambiguously that there's no way he can be a member of your congregation. I get it. The good news is that Into the Night flat out denies being a Bigamygeochemical. Just ask him. I think you had a tad bit of a miscommunication, that's all.

Im a BM wrote:If this is a testimonial or endorsement of ITN's chemistry competence, it's hard to see it.

It's an endorsement of cool fireworks. Where do I sign?

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, I'm sorry I couldn't dumb it down enough for you.

The journal NATURE is a "shit rag" according to IBdaMann and Into the Night.

Therefore, my widely cited paper in that journal is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

ITN and IBdaMann both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemisty'".

Therefore, my widely cited paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

IBdaMann asserted that pH = -ln[H+]

I pointed out that actual chemists use the definition of pH = -log[H+]

Into the Night says that neither is the correct definition for the "ratio" that is pH.

Stick to fireworks, dude.

At least IBdaMann thinks you're more than a scientifically illiterate moron.

That's way better than getting thousands of citations for your chemistry pubs.

Im a BM wrote: The journal NATURE is a "shit rag" according to IBdaMann and Into the Night.

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in that journal is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Im a BM wrote:ITN and IBdaMann both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemisty'".

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann asserted that pH = -ln[H+]

Im a BM wrote: I pointed out that actual chemists use the definition of pH = -log[H+]

Im a BM wrote: Stick to fireworks, dude.

Im a BM wrote:At least IBdaMann thinks you're more than a scientifically illiterate moron.

Im a BM wrote: That's way better than getting thousands of citations for your chemistry pubs.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: The journal NATURE is a "shit rag" according to IBdaMann and Into the Night.

Pretty much. They'll apparently publish anything. Have you read any of the doggerel they put out?

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in that journal is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Don't feel bad; it's not just your paper. It's practically everything published in that rag. They have no standards. They will publish almost anything. I should submit a poem by Andrew Marvell for publication under the Title "The Time Sensitive Nature of Potting Soil" and see if NATURE insists that I first define "Time's wingèd chariot." You know they won't, and within a week people will be citing my "paper" in their own submissions.

Im a BM wrote:ITN and IBdaMann both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemisty'".

Don't we all? Oh wait, you're the one claiming to be an actual bicyclegymnast. What do people in your niche do besides submit papers to, or cite papers in, NATURE?

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Look on the bright side, it's not just your paper; it's all of them. No one is somehow singling you out.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann asserted that pH = -ln[H+]

I did. That was a goof. It's just that I almost always deal in the natural logarithm and almost never in the log-base-10. I wrote ln(x) out of habit. My bad. Normally "I bad", but this time "My bad."

Im a BM wrote: I pointed out that actual chemists use the definition of pH = -log[H+]

Yes you did. You pulled through like a champ. You spotted the deviation from the unambiguous definition and you enforced adherence.

Now we're just waiting for you to define unambiguously the global climate, because nobody knows what the cuff you're talking about, nor do you.

Im a BM wrote: Stick to fireworks, dude.

You and I agree that they are way cooler.

Im a BM wrote:At least IBdaMann thinks you're more than a scientifically illiterate moron.

He's got fireworks! He's a BioGeoPyrotechnic! Maybe even a BioGeoPyrotechnomaniac! Who knows? All we know is that those BioGeoFireworks are awesome.

Im a BM wrote: That's way better than getting thousands of citations for your chemistry pubs.

Nobody cares how often his BioGeoFireworks are cited, although I recommend he submit a video of his BioGeoFireworksDisplay to NATURE for publication. You know they won't ask him to define anything.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: The journal NATURE is a "shit rag" according to IBdaMann and Into the Night.

Pretty much. They'll apparently publish anything. Have you read any of the doggerel they put out?

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in that journal is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Don't feel bad; it's not just your paper. It's practically everything published in that rag. They have no standards. They will publish almost anything. I should submit a poem by Andrew Marvell for publication under the Title "The Time Sensitive Nature of Potting Soil" and see if NATURE insists that I first define "Time's wingèd chariot." You know they won't, and within a week people will be citing my "paper" in their own submissions.

Im a BM wrote:ITN and IBdaMann both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemisty'".

Don't we all? Oh wait, you're the one claiming to be an actual bicyclegymnast. What do people in your niche do besides submit papers to, or cite papers in, NATURE?

Im a BM wrote: Therefore, my widely cited paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY is buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble that proves no chemistry competence.

Look on the bright side, it's not just your paper; it's all of them. No one is somehow singling you out.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann asserted that pH = -ln[H+]

I did. That was a goof. It's just that I almost always deal in the natural logarithm and almost never in the log-base-10. I wrote ln(x) out of habit. My bad. Normally "I bad", but this time "My bad."

Im a BM wrote: I pointed out that actual chemists use the definition of pH = -log[H+]

Yes you did. You pulled through like a champ. You spotted the deviation from the unambiguous definition and you enforced adherence.

Now we're just waiting for you to define unambiguously the global climate, because nobody knows what the cuff you're talking about, nor do you.

Im a BM wrote: Stick to fireworks, dude.

You and I agree that they are way cooler.

Im a BM wrote:At least IBdaMann thinks you're more than a scientifically illiterate moron.

He's got fireworks! He's a BioGeoPyrotechnic! Maybe even a BioGeoPyrotechnomaniac! Who knows? All we know is that those BioGeoFireworks are awesome.

Im a BM wrote: That's way better than getting thousands of citations for your chemistry pubs.

Nobody cares how often his BioGeoFireworks are cited, although I recommend he submit a video of his BioGeoFireworksDisplay to NATURE for publication. You know they won't ask him to define anything.

They used to have biogeofireworks at every Greatful Dead concert. They were apple juice based I think

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

"Global climate" is a theoretical concept that has little relevance to discussion of actual climate change.

Regional climate is a real world and measurable thing, with observable changes over time.

Newest estimates are that regional climate will change over more than half the world's land surface area. Biomes will shift their boundaries in response to climate change.

Regional climate is quantified in soil science (pedology) according to moisture and temperature regimes, with predictable soil properties derived from its impact.

"Global climate" is not something I have ever heard ANY scientist discuss, nor have I read such a term in actual scientific literature.

Regional climate is what changes before our eyes in the space of one or two generations.

Because climate CAN and DOES change over time, with or without anthropogenic influence.

If the theoretical "global climate" is the totality of all regional climates, then it too is changing. But it would be a hard thing to measure, and pointless to try.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

"Global climate" is a theoretical concept that has little relevance to discussion of actual climate change.

Regional climate is a real world and measurable thing, with observable changes over time.

Newest estimates are that regional climate will change over more than half the world's land surface area. Biomes will shift their boundaries in response to climate change.

Regional climate is quantified in soil science (pedology) according to moisture and temperature regimes, with predictable soil properties derived from its impact.

"Global climate" is not something I have ever heard ANY scientist discuss, nor have I read such a term in actual scientific literature.

Regional climate is what changes before our eyes in the space of one or two generations.

Because climate CAN and DOES change over time, with or without anthropogenic influence.

If the theoretical "global climate" is the totality of all regional climates, then it too is changing. But it would be a hard thing to measure, and pointless to try.

L
OL the Earths climate is theoretical.

So then are thermometers

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

"Global climate" is a theoretical concept that has little relevance to discussion of actual climate change.

Regional climate is a real world and measurable thing, with observable changes over time.

Newest estimates are that regional climate will change over more than half the world's land surface area. Biomes will shift their boundaries in response to climate change.

Regional climate is quantified in soil science (pedology) according to moisture and temperature regimes, with predictable soil properties derived from its impact.

"Global climate" is not something I have ever heard ANY scientist discuss, nor have I read such a term in actual scientific literature.

Regional climate is what changes before our eyes in the space of one or two generations.

Because climate CAN and DOES change over time, with or without anthropogenic influence.

If the theoretical "global climate" is the totality of all regional climates, then it too is changing. But it would be a hard thing to measure, and pointless to try.

L
OL the Earths climate is theoretical.

So then are thermometers

I was trying to figure out who ITN was arguing with about "global climate".

I NEVER used the term myself, until today.

I got curious enough to do a keyword search within climate-debate.com to see who DOES refer to "global climate".

IBdaMann refers to a "global climate goddess" a few weeks back. Spongy Iris refered to "indicators of global climate change".

Global WARMING shows up a lot in the "global" keyword search at climate-debate.com.

"Global climate" seems to be a term used most often by Into the Night, with IBdaMann in second place.

So, the unambiguous definition requirement falls upon the guys who seem to think the term "global climate" means something, because they use it repeatedly in their posts.

Science is not a chemical!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

Into the Night, you have asserted that many organic compounds are "carbohydrates", including vegetable oil, lignin, and polyphenols.

As a "chemist", where do you find the definitions for terms such as "carbohydrate"?

Would you be willing to offer the actual definition you use for "carbohydrate" if you are absolutely unwilling to cite any chemistry textbook or other publication as a source?

Better still, will you EVER tell us the unique definition of "pH" you have been using? "RQAA" is pure evasion.

If you are unable to write a definition for pH, could you at least reveal the secret source of definitions that "chemists" such as yourself use. If you at least referred to a published source of information, I could look it up and finally learn what "pH" is.

You can't, because you never learned any actual chemistry from any credible source.

I wouldn't be so disgusted by your false claim of being a "chemist" if you weren't constantly insisting that OTHERS are NOT "chemists".

You have trolled virtually every chemistry post I ever put up here with false assertions and false accusations.

At least IBdaMann seems to believe you actually understand this shit.

But he dodged the point where YOU insist that pH is NOT -log(H+), while agreeing with all the scientists that pH IS -log(H+)

You NEVER explained beyond four words what you mean by claiming that pH is a "ratio".

You NEVER explained beyond four letters ("RQAA") what the heck you think a CARBOHYDRATE is. But you keep insisting that every organic compound in a plant that isn't protein is a "carbohydrate".

I understand that "science is not a textbook", but are you saying that there is NO PUBLISHED SOURCE of definitions for terms such as "carbohydrate"?

How did YOU learn what a "carbohydrate" is? Not from a book, right? Not from a college class. Not from a chemistry professor. Not from a textbook.

Go ahead and keep the source of your chemical genius a SECRET. RQAA!

23,400 posts of your stupidity have made this website what it is today.

Im a BM wrote: Neither IBdaMann or ITN can name ONE scientific journal that is "credible". Not ONE!

Im a BM wrote:That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

Im a BM wrote: Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Neither IBdaMann or ITN can name ONE scientific journal that is "credible". Not ONE!

That's because there aren't any scientific journals; there are only journals, and apparently they will publish anything.

Im a BM wrote:That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

You've started raving again. Ease down, Ripley, ease down.

Im a BM wrote: Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Branner and who else?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Neither IBdaMann or ITN can name ONE scientific journal that is "credible". Not ONE!

That's because there aren't any scientific journals; there are only journals, and apparently they will publish anything.

Im a BM wrote:That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

You've started raving again. Ease down, Ripley, ease down.

Im a BM wrote: Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Branner and who else?

IBdaMann, you have been putting up about ten posts a MONTH for the past ten months.

You were trolling at a rate of more like ten posts a DAY when you first informed me that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" a few years ago.

Therefore, I characterize your new trolling regime as "sporadic cameos".

Ten years of heavy duty trolling by IBdaMann tapered way down in the last year.

In comparison to the past, now just "sporadic cameos"

Im a BM wrote: Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Google's answer: "Yes, water CAN act as a buffer for acid because it self-ionizes into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which can neutralize added acid or base, but it's a VERY POOR BUFFER compared to dedicated buffer solutions, as it can't resist significant pH changes, readily turning acidic or basic.

QUESTION:

is the correct answer what you originally wrote, that water itself does not provide any buffering, i.e. BUFF(ₕ₂ₒ) = 0.0 ...

...or is the correct answer what I taught you, that water does provide buffering, through dilution, which, though lacking in effectiveness, i.e. BUFF(ₕ₂ₒ) = 0.001, is nonetheless overpowering in an ocean where the water quantity is unlimited?

Which one is it? What does the definition of buffering say?

Speaking of water, how about that evaporation! You gotta love it.



"You are a scientifically illiterate moron" - IBdaMann

"You are describing yourself" - Into the Night

Define your terms, define your terms, define your terms, define your terms...


True buffers, like those in our bodies, contain weak acids/bases (e.g. bicarbonates in water) that can absorb excess H+ or OH- without drastic pH shifts."[/b]

About 90% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from bicarbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote:
Alternative Google inquiry about the pH buffering capacity of "water itself".

Question for Google: What percentage of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from water itself?

Im a BM wrote:
As I predicted it would, Google answered with: "The vast majority of the ocean's pH buffering capacity (over 99%) arises from dissolved chemical species, primarily the CARBONATE SYSTEM, not the water molecules themselves. The contribution from autoionization of water is negligible in comparison."

Im a BM wrote:
Although this is correct, I am disappointed that Google didn't offer a percentage value. It would have been fun to see it say, "Less than 0.01% of the ocean's pH buffering capacity arises from 'water itself'". "Negligible" is correct, but not a number.
...deleted repetitive rant...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
NATURE is a "shit rag" because they publish papers that "deny theories of science", according to ITN.

Apparently, there is not ONE published journal that ITN or IBdaMann can name that does NOT "deny theories of science". Not one single science textbook either. "Science is not a paper" "Science is not a textbook"

That leaves plenty of room to just MAKE SHIT UP, citing only one's own omniscience as the most credible source of science facts in the universe.

"Scientifically illiterate morons", as they love to say, pretty well sums it up.

Only two members of the original troll climate-debate.com team remain, for sporadic cameos.

Science is not a magazine, journal, book, paper, website, search engine, fact, or buzzword.

Now, do you want to try to define a 'global climate'?

(Spoiler alert: There is no such thing.)

Into the Night, you have asserted that many organic compounds are "carbohydrates", including vegetable oil, lignin, and polyphenols.

As a "chemist", where do you find the definitions for terms such as "carbohydrate"?

Would you be willing to offer the actual definition you use for "carbohydrate" if you are absolutely unwilling to cite any chemistry textbook or other publication as a source?

Better still, will you EVER tell us the unique definition of "pH" you have been using? "RQAA" is pure evasion.

If you are unable to write a definition for pH, could you at least reveal the secret source of definitions that "chemists" such as yourself use. If you at least referred to a published source of information, I could look it up and finally learn what "pH" is.

You can't, because you never learned any actual chemistry from any credible source.

I wouldn't be so disgusted by your false claim of being a "chemist" if you weren't constantly insisting that OTHERS are NOT "chemists".

You have trolled virtually every chemistry post I ever put up here with false assertions and false accusations.

At least IBdaMann seems to believe you actually understand this shit.

But he dodged the point where YOU insist that pH is NOT -log(H+), while agreeing with all the scientists that pH IS -log(H+)

You NEVER explained beyond four words what you mean by claiming that pH is a "ratio".

You NEVER explained beyond four letters ("RQAA") what the heck you think a CARBOHYDRATE is. But you keep insisting that every organic compound in a plant that isn't protein is a "carbohydrate".

I understand that "science is not a textbook", but are you saying that there is NO PUBLISHED SOURCE of definitions for terms such as "carbohydrate"?

How did YOU learn what a "carbohydrate" is? Not from a book, right? Not from a college class. Not from a chemistry professor. Not from a textbook.

Go ahead and keep the source of your chemical genius a SECRET. RQAA!

23,400 posts of your stupidity have made this website what it is today.

Still can't figure out what a carbohydrate is, eh? Perhaps you should go learn the Latin on what the compound means.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, one option is to look it up in an organic chemistry textbook. Almost all of them have at least one chapter dedicated to "carbohydrates". One would find meaningless buzzwords and incomprehensible gibber babble about "saccharides" and such. Meaningless symbols and numbers, too. Such as a general formula of Cn(H2O)n. In the case of monosaccharides such as glucose, fructose, or galactose, n = 6. Disaccharides such as sucrose or lactose have n= 12. Really big carbohydrates such as cellulose or starch have really big numbers for "n".

Latin reveals root words for carbon and water. Hydrated carbon. General formula Cn(H2O)n. NOT like vegetable oil or terpenes, the molecules of which contain no oxygen atoms whatsoever.

I can only imagine WHERE Into the Night believes he studied organic chemistry.

Science is not a "study"!