Does Anyone Know Anything about Polyphenols?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Does Anyone Know Anything about Polyphenols?

Page 1 of 2

Does Anyone Know Anything about Polyphenols?02-05-2024 19:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors?
02-05-2024 20:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Lack of moisture in feces. Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions.
02-05-2024 20:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Into the Night wrote: Lack of moisture in feces. What is it about pine litter that makes it effective against cat urine odors? I get that the urine has more water, but what makes the pine litter work? Into the Night wrote:Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions. Sand doesn't control odors quite as well. So overall you nonetheless recommend sand? Oh, take a wild guess at who implied via PM that he wouldn't be participating in my thread. I won't tell you who, but I don't think he actually knows anything about polyphenols to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.
02-05-2024 21:14
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Lack of moisture in feces. Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions. I don't think that it is YOUR attention that is being sought so desperately.
02-05-2024 22:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Lack of moisture in feces. What is it about pine litter that makes it effective against cat urine odors? I get that the urine has more water, but what makes the pine litter work? Absorption. The urine also breaks down the pine litter into a sawdust consistency as it composts. Into the Night wrote:Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions. Sand doesn't control odors quite as well.[/quote] Cats prefer sand. Dichotomous (clumping) litter is tolerated because it's mixed with sand. As the cat buries their excretions, the litter tends to get kicked out of the box. Pine litter is usually easier to clean up than the sand. In all cases, the key controlling odor is to keep the litter box clear of urine and feces. IBdaMann wrote: So overall you nonetheless recommend sand? Most cats live in sandy areas, and this is what the species has built an instinct to do; bury their excretions. It's useful when the whole world is your litter box, and it helps to limit detection of the cat's presence by their prey Domestic cats, of course have to deal with the artificial conditions of a small litterbox. Sand is easy to dig in and quite benign. Pine litter works, and some cats do live in forests, but the breakdown of pine (or any other wood) to sawdust can cause allergic reactions to some people. Pine can be particularly problematic in this regard, due to the oils in the wood. Most cats have no problem with pine litter. Dichotomous (clumping) litter has sand mixed in it to give the cat something they can easily dig in. Dichotomous earth, after all, is a clay and naturally hardens in the presence of moisture (even humidity). Even compacting it with a ram will create some pretty hard and relatively fireproof material. That's why you find it on model rocket engine nozzles. Plain sand is what most cats like to use in the wild. IBdaMann wrote: Oh, take a wild guess at who implied via PM that he wouldn't be participating in my thread. I won't tell you who, but I don't think he actually knows anything about polyphenols to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. It's not the polyphenols that make much difference here (other than triggering an allergy in some people and even some cats). The pine litter is made of compressed pellets to make it attractive for the cat. They simply become uncompressed in the presence of moisture, carrying the urine to the bottom of the box with it. I let my cats out much of the time. They take care of most of their business out there, leaving much less of a mess in the litterbox. I bring them in at night to protect them from coyotes in the area. With this routine, they are most active during morning and evening hours, and don't keep people up at night with their activity. Like most cats, they generally snooze through most of the day. 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
02-06-2024 23:38
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Thank goodness there is a thread about cat urine and feces odors! Do we need an unambiguous definition of "cat", or do we just accept as a matter of faith that "cat" means "amphibian"? Because CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE. As per Royal Decree, so **** your science!
03-06-2024 00:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: Thank goodness there is a thread about cat urine and feces odors! ... because if it were a thread about, say, polyphenols, you wouldn't have anything to contribute. Im a BM wrote: Do we need an unambiguous definition of "cat", or do we just accept as a matter of faith that "cat" means "amphibian"? We already have the abstract definition of "animal" to which we apply the specialization relationship. Im a BM wrote: Because CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE. I think I'll quote you on that.
03-06-2024 00:42
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Science is not a cat. Urine is not feces. You are ignoring the laws of feline flatulence, dumbass. Nobody is buying your WACKY cat religion. You don't even know what feces is, you moron.
03-06-2024 00:59
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Another brainwashed Odorzombie. Stupid, uneducated, and GULLIBLE enough to believe your own lying nose. Got news for ya, pal. That stink you smell isn't from the cat.
03-06-2024 06:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Science is not a cat. Guess you never heard of Schrodinger and his cat. 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
03-06-2024 09:51
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? You came here to preach your WACKY cult's religion for the Church of Cat Urine and Feces. Your Marxist crap won't fly here. There is no such thing as "odors". It is a meaningless buzzword. Why should any rational adult want to ELIMINATE a meaningless buzzword, allegedly associated with cat feces? You are not God or king. You don't get to decide what should be "eliminated".
03-06-2024 23:34
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Science is not pine litter. Urine is not an odor. You obviously don't know shit about feces. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would invoke "polyphenols" in a discussion about kitty poop stank. Why are you so afraid of cats?
03-06-2024 23:49
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	You are a liar. You have never owned a cat. You do NOT have a degree in cat science. You obviously don't know anything about litter. Making up stories about yourself won't help you. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Lack of moisture in feces. What is it about pine litter that makes it effective against cat urine odors? I get that the urine has more water, but what makes the pine litter work? Absorption. The urine also breaks down the pine litter into a sawdust consistency as it composts. Into the Night wrote:Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions. Sand doesn't control odors quite as well. Cats prefer sand. Dichotomous (clumping) litter is tolerated because it's mixed with sand. As the cat buries their excretions, the litter tends to get kicked out of the box. Pine litter is usually easier to clean up than the sand. In all cases, the key controlling odor is to keep the litter box clear of urine and feces. IBdaMann wrote: So overall you nonetheless recommend sand? Most cats live in sandy areas, and this is what the species has built an instinct to do; bury their excretions. It's useful when the whole world is your litter box, and it helps to limit detection of the cat's presence by their prey Domestic cats, of course have to deal with the artificial conditions of a small litterbox. Sand is easy to dig in and quite benign. Pine litter works, and some cats do live in forests, but the breakdown of pine (or any other wood) to sawdust can cause allergic reactions to some people. Pine can be particularly problematic in this regard, due to the oils in the wood. Most cats have no problem with pine litter. Dichotomous (clumping) litter has sand mixed in it to give the cat something they can easily dig in. Dichotomous earth, after all, is a clay and naturally hardens in the presence of moisture (even humidity). Even compacting it with a ram will create some pretty hard and relatively fireproof material. That's why you find it on model rocket engine nozzles. Plain sand is what most cats like to use in the wild. IBdaMann wrote: Oh, take a wild guess at who implied via PM that he wouldn't be participating in my thread. I won't tell you who, but I don't think he actually knows anything about polyphenols to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. It's not the polyphenols that make much difference here (other than triggering an allergy in some people and even some cats). The pine litter is made of compressed pellets to make it attractive for the cat. They simply become uncompressed in the presence of moisture, carrying the urine to the bottom of the box with it. I let my cats out much of the time. They take care of most of their business out there, leaving much less of a mess in the litterbox. I bring them in at night to protect them from coyotes in the area. With this routine, they are most active during morning and evening hours, and don't keep people up at night with their activity. Like most cats, they generally snooze through most of the day.[/quote]
04-06-2024 05:14
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Go and learn some science, you moron. Science is not feces. Pine litter is not a cat. You run in fear and cower when confronted with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your WACKY Marxist religion. You're a horrid father, and you never give me anything I want.
04-06-2024 19:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote:You're a horrid father, and you never give me anything I want. Regarding this last little piece of projection, is there anything you'd like to get off your chest?
05-06-2024 02:14
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:You're a horrid father, and you never give me anything I want. Regarding this last little piece of projection, is there anything you'd like to get off your chest? It is a quote from Veruca Salt, arguing with her father when she visited Willie Wonka's factory. Branner's last visit here was at the end of February. When he comes back, I'm sure he will put sealover on double secret probation. We can't have a self doxing spammer troll fake scientist ruining everything!
05-06-2024 11:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: You are a liar. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: You have never owned a cat. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: You do NOT have a degree in cat science. No such thing. Im a BM wrote: You obviously don't know anything about litter. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: Making up stories about yourself won't help you. You are describing yourself. You cannot blame others for YOUR problems. 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
05-06-2024 19:11
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:You're a horrid father, and you never give me anything I want. Regarding this last little piece of projection, is there anything you'd like to get off your chest? Yeah, I was just trying to think of a line that a malignant narcissist would say. Then I remembered Veruca Salt. Long before psychologists coined the term, the fictional character Veruca provided an example for cultural reference of how a malignant narcissist behaves. I'm surprised that it wasn't recognized. You were too busy studying thermodynamics to see the Willie Wonka movie.
08-06-2024 23:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? Is there a reason to include "polyphenols" in the title of a thread about catshit stink?
09-06-2024 06:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	sealover wrote: Is there a reason to include "polyphenols" in the title of a thread about [polyphenols]? Yes. It's usually a nice touch.
06-05-2026 15:08
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." - Into the Night "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night "The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night "Nature is a shit rag." - Into the Night "Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night "You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Google AI provides the answer at the upper left: "Yes, Robert R. Northup is a recognized researcher specializing in the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols, particularly tannins, and their role in soil nutrient cycling and biogeochemistry. His work frequently focuses on how these compounds interact with soil organic matter, nitrogen cycling, and soil properties in forest ecosystems" "Does anyone know anything about polyphenols?" - IBdaMann Yes, someone does. Robert R. Northup is a chemist who is recognized as an expert regarding the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols. Why? Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? In any case, such an expert would be able to confirm that phenol IS a chemical. But you don't have to believe the "experts". GOOGLE it! "Phenol", aka "carbolic acid" is a CHEMICAL with the formula C6H5OH. It is also "a phenol", because it has a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to a benzene ring. But it is the only phenol in its class named "PHENOL" on its birth certificate. On the other hand. ALL phenols are chemicals. ALL of them! Polyphenols included. They are chemicals. Tannins are polyphenols and they are ALL CHEMICALS. Polyphenol means more than one phenol benzene ring with at least one hydroxyl group each attached together in a polymer. Unlike the individual chemical known as "phenol", the polyphenols they call TANNINS are phenol, carboxylic acids. In addition to hydroxyl groups (-OH) they also have a carboxylic acid group (-COOH) attached to many of the phenol benzene rings. Edited on 06-05-2026 15:30
06-05-2026 19:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." - Into the Night "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night "The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night "Nature is a shit rag." - Into the Night "Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night "You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Google AI provides the answer at the upper left: "Yes, Robert R. Northup is a recognized researcher specializing in the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols, particularly tannins, and their role in soil nutrient cycling and biogeochemistry. His work frequently focuses on how these compounds interact with soil organic matter, nitrogen cycling, and soil properties in forest ecosystems" You are not Google. You are not GoogleAI. Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecological chemistry'. Tannin is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Buzzword fallacies (GoogleAI, Polyphenol, ecological chemistry, Tannin, biogeochemistry, forest ecosystem). Im a BM wrote: "Does anyone know anything about polyphenols?" - IBdaMann Yes, someone does. Robert R. Northup is a chemist who is recognized as an expert regarding the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols. Buzzword fallacies (polyphenol, chemist, expert, ecological chemistry). Chemistry is not a title, Robert. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Why? Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? Climate cannot change, Robert. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are not 'interpretations'. They are math equations that you choose to completely ignore. They are theories of science that you choose to completely ignore. 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) = U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. You ignore this law because you think some Magick Holy Gas is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. 2nd law of thermodynamics e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy' (available energy for use to produce work) and 't' is time. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface can heat the warmer surface. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder object. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: E = Cet^4, where 'E' is electromagnetic energy, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is 'emissivity' (how well a surface absorbs and radiates light...a constant), and 't' is temperature. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas is somehow capable of reducing radiance by increasing temperature. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. No Magick Holy Gas is able to warm the Earth. CO2 cannot do it. Methane cannot do it. Water vapor cannot do it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Im a BM wrote: In any case, such an expert would be able to confirm that phenol IS a chemical. But you don't have to believe the "experts". GOOGLE it! Irrelevance fallacy. I'm done with your boolschit. ALL of it is to try to justify hatred and fear of of CO2. Im a BM wrote: "Phenol", aka "carbolic acid" is a CHEMICAL with the formula C6H5OH. It is also "a phenol", because it has a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to a benzene ring. [quote]Im a BM wrote: But it is the only phenol in its class named "PHENOL" on its birth certificate. On the other hand. ALL phenols are chemicals. ALL of them! Polyphenols included. They are chemicals. Tannins are polyphenols and they are ALL CHEMICALS. Polyphenol means more than one phenol benzene ring with at least one hydroxyl group each attached together in a polymer. Unlike the individual chemical known as "phenol", the polyphenols they call TANNINS are phenol, carboxylic acids. In addition to hydroxyl groups (-OH) they also have a carboxylic acid group (-COOH) attached to many of the phenol benzene rings. Irrelevance 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
06-05-2026 23:57
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	"Polyphenol is not a chemical" - Into the Night With that revelation, ALL assertions made about polyphenols were "debunked" Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." - Into the Night "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night "The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night "Nature is a shit rag." - Into the Night "Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night "You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Google AI provides the answer at the upper left: "Yes, Robert R. Northup is a recognized researcher specializing in the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols, particularly tannins, and their role in soil nutrient cycling and biogeochemistry. His work frequently focuses on how these compounds interact with soil organic matter, nitrogen cycling, and soil properties in forest ecosystems" You are not Google. You are not GoogleAI. Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecological chemistry'. Tannin is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Buzzword fallacies (GoogleAI, Polyphenol, ecological chemistry, Tannin, biogeochemistry, forest ecosystem). Im a BM wrote: "Does anyone know anything about polyphenols?" - IBdaMann Yes, someone does. Robert R. Northup is a chemist who is recognized as an expert regarding the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols. Buzzword fallacies (polyphenol, chemist, expert, ecological chemistry). Chemistry is not a title, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Why? Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? Climate cannot change, Robert. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are not 'interpretations'. They are math equations that you choose to completely ignore. They are theories of science that you choose to completely ignore. 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) = U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. You ignore this law because you think some Magick Holy Gas is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. 2nd law of thermodynamics e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy' (available energy for use to produce work) and 't' is time. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface can heat the warmer surface. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder object. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: E = Cet^4, where 'E' is electromagnetic energy, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is 'emissivity' (how well a surface absorbs and radiates light...a constant), and 't' is temperature. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas is somehow capable of reducing radiance by increasing temperature. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. No Magick Holy Gas is able to warm the Earth. CO2 cannot do it. Methane cannot do it. Water vapor cannot do it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Im a BM wrote: In any case, such an expert would be able to confirm that phenol IS a chemical. But you don't have to believe the "experts". GOOGLE it! Irrelevance fallacy. I'm done with your boolschit. ALL of it is to try to justify hatred and fear of of CO2. Im a BM wrote: "Phenol", aka "carbolic acid" is a CHEMICAL with the formula C6H5OH. It is also "a phenol", because it has a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to a benzene ring. [quote]Im a BM wrote: But it is the only phenol in its class named "PHENOL" on its birth certificate. On the other hand. ALL phenols are chemicals. ALL of them! Polyphenols included. They are chemicals. Tannins are polyphenols and they are ALL CHEMICALS. Polyphenol means more than one phenol benzene ring with at least one hydroxyl group each attached together in a polymer. Unlike the individual chemical known as "phenol", the polyphenols they call TANNINS are phenol, carboxylic acids. In addition to hydroxyl groups (-OH) they also have a carboxylic acid group (-COOH) attached to many of the phenol benzene rings. Irrelevance fallacy.
08-05-2026 01:32
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Im a BM wrote: "Polyphenol is not a chemical" - Into the Night With that revelation, ALL assertions made about polyphenols were "debunked" Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: Why is pine litter so effective at eliminating cat urine odors, but rather ineffective at eliminating cat feces odors? "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert." - Into the Night "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." - Into the Night "The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." - Into the Night "Nature is a shit rag." - Into the Night "Phenol is not a chemical." - Into the Night "You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." - IBdaMann Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Google AI provides the answer at the upper left: "Yes, Robert R. Northup is a recognized researcher specializing in the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols, particularly tannins, and their role in soil nutrient cycling and biogeochemistry. His work frequently focuses on how these compounds interact with soil organic matter, nitrogen cycling, and soil properties in forest ecosystems" You are not Google. You are not GoogleAI. Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'ecological chemistry'. Tannin is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Buzzword fallacies (GoogleAI, Polyphenol, ecological chemistry, Tannin, biogeochemistry, forest ecosystem). Im a BM wrote: "Does anyone know anything about polyphenols?" - IBdaMann Yes, someone does. Robert R. Northup is a chemist who is recognized as an expert regarding the ecological chemistry of plant polyphenols. Buzzword fallacies (polyphenol, chemist, expert, ecological chemistry). Chemistry is not a title, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Why? Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? Climate cannot change, Robert. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are not 'interpretations'. They are math equations that you choose to completely ignore. They are theories of science that you choose to completely ignore. 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) = U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. You ignore this law because you think some Magick Holy Gas is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. 2nd law of thermodynamics e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy' (available energy for use to produce work) and 't' is time. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface can heat the warmer surface. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder object. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: E = Cet^4, where 'E' is electromagnetic energy, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is 'emissivity' (how well a surface absorbs and radiates light...a constant), and 't' is temperature. You ignore this law because you think a Magick Holy Gas is somehow capable of reducing radiance by increasing temperature. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. No Magick Holy Gas is able to warm the Earth. CO2 cannot do it. Methane cannot do it. Water vapor cannot do it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Im a BM wrote: In any case, such an expert would be able to confirm that phenol IS a chemical. But you don't have to believe the "experts". GOOGLE it! Irrelevance fallacy. I'm done with your boolschit. ALL of it is to try to justify hatred and fear of of CO2. Im a BM wrote: "Phenol", aka "carbolic acid" is a CHEMICAL with the formula C6H5OH. It is also "a phenol", because it has a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached to a benzene ring. [quote]Im a BM wrote: But it is the only phenol in its class named "PHENOL" on its birth certificate. On the other hand. ALL phenols are chemicals. ALL of them! Polyphenols included. They are chemicals. Tannins are polyphenols and they are ALL CHEMICALS. Polyphenol means more than one phenol benzene ring with at least one hydroxyl group each attached together in a polymer. Unlike the individual chemical known as "phenol", the polyphenols they call TANNINS are phenol, carboxylic acids. In addition to hydroxyl groups (-OH) they also have a carboxylic acid group (-COOH) attached to many of the phenol benzene rings. Irrelevance fallacy. And only a REAL "chemist" would be able to spot the fake, and characterize it all as "irrelevant". Because it is buzzwords used to compose incomprehensible gibber babble. Having asserted that "Phenol is not a chemical" (DON'T DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!), it now becomes necessary to deny the existence of an industrial chemical with chemical formula C6H5OH that is also known as CARBOLIC ACID. I guess this means that CARBOLIC ACID is also "not a chemical". IBdaMann will find a way to rationalize that as long as your logic in argument is internally consistent, that's all that matters. "I am the authoritative source of information..." - Into the Night Define your terms, for a change! What do you think a "chemical" is, if carbolic acid (aka "phenol") is not a chemical? Since the fact that ANY term (name of anion in solution, etc) does not meet the magic, SECRET criteria to be called a "chemical" nullifies the validity of ANY reference to it... Maybe it's time you finally revealed what you think it IS. If your ONLY response to reference to the carbonate system of pH buffering in sea water, the behavior of the carbonate ion in pH buffering, the significance of carbonate ion bioavailability in marine ecosystems, the fact that carbonate ion alkalinity makes up nearly 10% of total alkalinity in sea water... The universal response is as far as the explanation ever gets... "Carbonate is not a chemical." - Into the Night And that's ALL there is to say about it.
08-05-2026 03:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: ...removed irrelevant material... Stop spamming. Irrelevance fallacy. You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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
08-05-2026 06:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenols suck at controlling cat feces odors. Im a BM wrote:Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Copilot's Response to the Question: No. Based on all available published evidence, Robert R. Northup is not a chemistry expert on polyphenols. He is an ecologist whose work involves the ecological effects of plant polyphenols, not their chemical structure, synthesis, or molecular chemistry. What the sources actually show All authoritative search results point to the same Robert R. Northup, and his work is consistently in ecosystem ecology, nutrient cycling, and plant–soil interactions, not chemical polyphenol science. ✔ He studies ecological roles of polyphenols — not polyphenol chemistry A Nature paper by Robert R. Northup shows he studied how polyphenol concentrations in pine litter regulate nitrogen release in ecosystems. This is ecological nutrient‑cycling research, not chemical characterization of polyphenols. A book chapter authored by Robert R. Northup discusses polyphenols in plant ecology, focusing on how polyphenol‑rich plants alter soil conditions and nutrient cycling. Again, this is ecological, not chemical. Across all these sources, his expertise is consistently: plant–soil interactions nutrient cycling ecological effects of polyphenols tannin‑rich plant communities biogeochemical feedbacks ✔ What he is not There is no evidence that he is: a chemist a polyphenol synthetic chemist a phytochemical analyst a specialist in polyphenol molecular structure, biosynthesis, or chemical reactivity None of his publications deal with: polyphenol molecular chemistry flavonoid chemistry antioxidant mechanisms polyphenol extraction or analysis biomedical polyphenol chemistry Those domains belong to researchers like Laura Bravo and others in nutritional biochemistry and phytochemistry. Bottom line Robert R. Northup is an expert in the ecology of polyphenols, not the chemistry of polyphenols. His work focuses on how polyphenols affect soil processes, nitrogen cycling, and plant communities, not their chemical properties or molecular behavior. If you want, I can also map out: the difference between polyphenol chemistry and polyphenol ecology a list of actual polyphenol chemists how Northup's work fits into the broader polyphenol research landscape I hate to be the one to splash you with cold water, but we're back to you being the only one who thinks you are somehow a chemist. Do you have any neat fireworks that you haven't mentioned yet? Im a BM wrote:Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? I need you to provide an unambiguous definition for "climate change" that doesn't violate science, math, logic, economics or empirical observations.
08-05-2026 08:54
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenols suck at controlling cat feces odors. Im a BM wrote:Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Copilot's Response to the Question: No. Based on all available published evidence, Robert R. Northup is not a chemistry expert on polyphenols. He is an ecologist whose work involves the ecological effects of plant polyphenols, not their chemical structure, synthesis, or molecular chemistry. What the sources actually show All authoritative search results point to the same Robert R. Northup, and his work is consistently in ecosystem ecology, nutrient cycling, and plant–soil interactions, not chemical polyphenol science. ✔ He studies ecological roles of polyphenols — not polyphenol chemistry A Nature paper by Robert R. Northup shows he studied how polyphenol concentrations in pine litter regulate nitrogen release in ecosystems. This is ecological nutrient‑cycling research, not chemical characterization of polyphenols. A book chapter authored by Robert R. Northup discusses polyphenols in plant ecology, focusing on how polyphenol‑rich plants alter soil conditions and nutrient cycling. Again, this is ecological, not chemical. Across all these sources, his expertise is consistently: plant–soil interactions nutrient cycling ecological effects of polyphenols tannin‑rich plant communities biogeochemical feedbacks ✔ What he is not There is no evidence that he is: a chemist a polyphenol synthetic chemist a phytochemical analyst a specialist in polyphenol molecular structure, biosynthesis, or chemical reactivity None of his publications deal with: polyphenol molecular chemistry flavonoid chemistry antioxidant mechanisms polyphenol extraction or analysis biomedical polyphenol chemistry Those domains belong to researchers like Laura Bravo and others in nutritional biochemistry and phytochemistry. Bottom line Robert R. Northup is an expert in the ecology of polyphenols, not the chemistry of polyphenols. His work focuses on how polyphenols affect soil processes, nitrogen cycling, and plant communities, not their chemical properties or molecular behavior. If you want, I can also map out: the difference between polyphenol chemistry and polyphenol ecology a list of actual polyphenol chemists how Northup's work fits into the broader polyphenol research landscape I hate to be the one to splash you with cold water, but we're back to you being the only one who thinks you are somehow a chemist. Do you have any neat fireworks that you haven't mentioned yet? Im a BM wrote:Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? I need you to provide an unambiguous definition for "climate change" that doesn't violate science, math, logic, economics or empirical observations. Still can't figure out what science is, eh? How can you claim that ANYONE'S "expertise is consistently: (deleted spam) Biogeochemical feedbacks"? "Biogeochemical feedbacks"? I thought you had assured us, ad naseum, that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." Yet, it would appear to be the only thing I'm credited for in science. Something that doesn't even exist, according to IBdaMann and Into the Night. It appears that "Pyrotechnic chemistry" is a genuine field of science, whereas "biogeochemistry".. IBdaMann "debunked" it for the religious cult that it is. So, "biogeochemical feedbacks" are related to the cult of the old Russian con artist, and now IBdaMann is so freakin' GULLIBLE that he's referring to them as if they were valid in some way... But they would know better than I because they are REAL "scientists". Edited on 08-05-2026 09:07
08-05-2026 21:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Does anyone know anything about polyphenols? Anyone? Polyphenols suck at controlling cat feces odors. Im a BM wrote:Since I've already been "doxed" (my own damn fault!) with a couple of Google maps to a couple of houses in California, I may as well tell you the name of someone who really IS "recognized as a chemist". Recognized as an "expert". Ask Google: "Is Robert R. Northup an expert regarding the chemistry of polyphenols?" Copilot's Response to the Question: No. Based on all available published evidence, Robert R. Northup is not a chemistry expert on polyphenols. He is an ecologist whose work involves the ecological effects of plant polyphenols, not their chemical structure, synthesis, or molecular chemistry. What the sources actually show All authoritative search results point to the same Robert R. Northup, and his work is consistently in ecosystem ecology, nutrient cycling, and plant–soil interactions, not chemical polyphenol science. ✔ He studies ecological roles of polyphenols — not polyphenol chemistry A Nature paper by Robert R. Northup shows he studied how polyphenol concentrations in pine litter regulate nitrogen release in ecosystems. This is ecological nutrient‑cycling research, not chemical characterization of polyphenols. A book chapter authored by Robert R. Northup discusses polyphenols in plant ecology, focusing on how polyphenol‑rich plants alter soil conditions and nutrient cycling. Again, this is ecological, not chemical. Across all these sources, his expertise is consistently: plant–soil interactions nutrient cycling ecological effects of polyphenols tannin‑rich plant communities biogeochemical feedbacks ✔ What he is not There is no evidence that he is: a chemist a polyphenol synthetic chemist a phytochemical analyst a specialist in polyphenol molecular structure, biosynthesis, or chemical reactivity None of his publications deal with: polyphenol molecular chemistry flavonoid chemistry antioxidant mechanisms polyphenol extraction or analysis biomedical polyphenol chemistry Those domains belong to researchers like Laura Bravo and others in nutritional biochemistry and phytochemistry. Bottom line Robert R. Northup is an expert in the ecology of polyphenols, not the chemistry of polyphenols. His work focuses on how polyphenols affect soil processes, nitrogen cycling, and plant communities, not their chemical properties or molecular behavior. If you want, I can also map out: the difference between polyphenol chemistry and polyphenol ecology a list of actual polyphenol chemists how Northup's work fits into the broader polyphenol research landscape I hate to be the one to splash you with cold water, but we're back to you being the only one who thinks you are somehow a chemist. Do you have any neat fireworks that you haven't mentioned yet? Im a BM wrote:Do you need someone to provide an unamibiguous definition for "climate change" that does not violate some bizarre interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? I need you to provide an unambiguous definition for "climate change" that doesn't violate science, math, logic, economics or empirical observations. Still can't figure out what science is, eh? How can you claim that ANYONE'S "expertise is consistently: (deleted spam) Biogeochemical feedbacks"? "Biogeochemical feedbacks"? I thought you had assured us, ad naseum, that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." Yet, it would appear to be the only thing I'm credited for in science. Something that doesn't even exist, according to IBdaMann and Into the Night. It appears that "Pyrotechnic chemistry" is a genuine field of science, whereas "biogeochemistry".. IBdaMann "debunked" it for the religious cult that it is. So, "biogeochemical feedbacks" are related to the cult of the old Russian con artist, and now IBdaMann is so freakin' GULLIBLE that he's referring to them as if they were valid in some way... But they would know better than I because they are REAL "scientists".
09-05-2026 01:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Still can't figure out what science is, eh? Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: How can you claim that ANYONE'S "expertise is consistently: (deleted spam) Biogeochemical feedbacks"? "Biogeochemical feedbacks"? Word games. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I thought you had assured us, ad naseum, that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." Yet, it would appear to be the only thing I'm credited for in science. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You deny science. You STILL have not described what is 'changing' in climate. You are still ignoring and discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-05-2026 06:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: I thought you had assured us, ad naseum, that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." You thought that because there is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Im a BM wrote:Yet, it would appear to be the only thing I'm credited for in science. You found the error. Im a BM wrote:It appears that "Pyrotechnic chemistry" is a genuine field of science, whereas "biogeochemistry".. IBdaMann "debunked" it for the religious cult that it is. Well done. Im a BM wrote:So, "biogeochemical feedbacks" are related to the cult of the old Russian con artist, and now IBdaMann is so freakin' GULLIBLE that he's referring to them as if they were valid in some way... Nope; I am not. I am always free to respond to someone's mention of the term.
09-05-2026 18:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	A REAL scientist knows to refer to cat "excrement" as "excretions", and "diatomaceous earth" as "dichotomous earth", because the term "dichotomous" gives you that "clumping"... Why not? But "It's not the polyphenols that make much difference here (other than triggering an allergy in some people and even some cats)" And THAT is all a "chemist" would have to say about polyphenols, so that is all that was said about polyphenols, to display whether or not ANYONE knows ANYTHING about polyphenols, as per thread title. But according to the Great Omniscient God GOOGLE: "Polyphenols do not typically cause allergies, in fact they are widely recognized for their anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory, and immune-regulating properties. ..compounds like quercitin and catechins often help reduce allergic symptoms such as hay fever and food sensitivities." As for those cat "excretions", "dichotomous" litter is what you want, so they can do "what the species has built an instinct to do; bury their excretions" Species build their instincts very thoughtfully sometimes. I'm not sure what the Grammer Police, so concerned about improper use of terms such as "they", "them" and "their" would say about, "As the cat buries their excretions.." Well, I know EXACTLY what the Grammer Police would say if a WARMAZOMBIE posted "..the cat buries their.." something. I guess it's okay if the cat only buries their "excretions" in the "dichotomous earth". Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Lack of moisture in feces. What is it about pine litter that makes it effective against cat urine odors? I get that the urine has more water, but what makes the pine litter work? Absorption. The urine also breaks down the pine litter into a sawdust consistency as it composts. Into the Night wrote:Cats generally don't like pine litter anyway. They prefer sand, burying their excretions. Sand doesn't control odors quite as well. Cats prefer sand. Dichotomous (clumping) litter is tolerated because it's mixed with sand. As the cat buries their excretions, the litter tends to get kicked out of the box. Pine litter is usually easier to clean up than the sand. In all cases, the key controlling odor is to keep the litter box clear of urine and feces. IBdaMann wrote: So overall you nonetheless recommend sand? Most cats live in sandy areas, and this is what the species has built an instinct to do; bury their excretions. It's useful when the whole world is your litter box, and it helps to limit detection of the cat's presence by their prey Domestic cats, of course have to deal with the artificial conditions of a small litterbox. Sand is easy to dig in and quite benign. Pine litter works, and some cats do live in forests, but the breakdown of pine (or any other wood) to sawdust can cause allergic reactions to some people. Pine can be particularly problematic in this regard, due to the oils in the wood. Most cats have no problem with pine litter. Dichotomous (clumping) litter has sand mixed in it to give the cat something they can easily dig in. Dichotomous earth, after all, is a clay and naturally hardens in the presence of moisture (even humidity). Even compacting it with a ram will create some pretty hard and relatively fireproof material. That's why you find it on model rocket engine nozzles. Plain sand is what most cats like to use in the wild. IBdaMann wrote: Oh, take a wild guess at who implied via PM that he wouldn't be participating in my thread. I won't tell you who, but I don't think he actually knows anything about polyphenols to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. It's not the polyphenols that make much difference here (other than triggering an allergy in some people and even some cats). The pine litter is made of compressed pellets to make it attractive for the cat. They simply become uncompressed in the presence of moisture, carrying the urine to the bottom of the box with it. I let my cats out much of the time. They take care of most of their business out there, leaving much less of a mess in the litterbox. I bring them in at night to protect them from coyotes in the area. With this routine, they are most active during morning and evening hours, and don't keep people up at night with their activity. Like most cats, they generally snooze through most of the day.[/quote]
09-05-2026 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: A REAL scientist knows to refer to cat "excrement" as "excretions", and "diatomaceous earth" as "dichotomous earth", because the term "dichotomous" gives you that "clumping"... Why not? ...deleted remaining word games and irrelevance... Your word games won't work, Robert. Apparently you know as little about cat litter as you do about chemistry and science. Apparently you don't even know shit. Diatomaceous Earth is not used to make cat litter clump. It is used in NON-clumping cat litter, as an spilled oil absorbant, as an insecticide, or even as a slug repellent. It is also used in fireworking to make rocket, gerb, and driver nozzles. It does NOT harden in the presence of moisture. So what is 'changing' in climate, Robert? You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 09-05-2026 20:37
13-05-2026 02:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: You are a liar. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: You have never owned a cat. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: You do NOT have a degree in cat science. No such thing. Im a BM wrote: You obviously don't know anything about litter. You are describing yourself. Im a BM wrote: Making up stories about yourself won't help you. You are describing yourself. You cannot blame others for YOUR problems. YOU cannot tell me what I cannot do. YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) started calling me "squeal over" LONG before I started calling him "Parrot Boy". YARP is obviously an expert who knows all about "polyphenols", or he would have no reason to be trolling this thread so tenaciously.
13-05-2026 03:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot blame others for YOUR problems. YOU cannot tell me what I cannot do. ...deleted whining... LOGIC tells you what you cannot do, Robert. You cannot blame others for YOUR problems any more than you can make 2+3=9. 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 13-05-2026 03:03
13-05-2026 09:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure what the Grammer Police, so concerned about improper use of terms such as "they", "them" and "their" would say about, "As the cat buries their excretions.." Robert, I'm glad you asked. The answer, quite frankly, is that scientists really care about quantity. Just ask any scientist. Quantity is a rather big deal. If the quantity being discussed is singular, but then someone begins exceeding the limit with multiples, that's a "no go" error. It's a problem that needs to be resolved before the discussion or project can proceed. Yes, I'm aware that laymen such as yourself have probably never formally learned about quantity and satisfying requirements, so you don't understand how you throw essentially everything out the window when you inadvertently switch from a subject of "someone" (singular) to a pronoun such as "they" (multiple), without correcting the multiplicity or addressing the requirements of the parallel structure. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm here for you.
13-05-2026 15:20
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure what the Grammer Police, so concerned about improper use of terms such as "they", "them" and "their" would say about, "As the cat buries their excretions.." Robert, I'm glad you asked. The answer, quite frankly, is that scientists really care about quantity. Just ask any scientist. Quantity is a rather big deal. If the quantity being discussed is singular, but then someone begins exceeding the limit with multiples, that's a "no go" error. It's a problem that needs to be resolved before the discussion or project can proceed. Yes, I'm aware that laymen such as yourself have probably never formally learned about quantity and satisfying requirements, so you don't understand how you throw essentially everything out the window when you inadvertently switch from a subject of "someone" (singular) to a pronoun such as "they" (multiple), without correcting the multiplicity or addressing the requirements of the parallel structure. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm here for you. Scientists use a lot of quantitative terms that the layman may think are just some kind of adjective. "Alkalinity", for example, is most often used to refer to a quantity reported as moles per liter H+ neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter CaCO3 equivalents. The decline in sea water "alkalinity" isn't some abstract movement on the pH scale, barely discernable because the sea is so well buffered against pH change. "pH" is another quantitative term, but it is an exponential function, so it gets a little complicated. pH = -log(H+). Scientists are strictly faithful to math, so they must accept the consequences for the equations. pH CAN and WILL be BELOW ZERO if (H+) > 1.0 Tell your little friend that is IS possible, even if we let him call pH a "ratio". I'm "woke" enough now to give him some leeway to self identify as "chemist", regardless of what the scientists wrote on his Education Certificate. But he doesn't get to redefine the quantitative terms used in chemistry. pH can only be a "ratio" until you try to use in ANY equations. Actual "chemists" use pH in a LOT of equations. For example, from 1990 at the big conference... when YOU first taught ME about pH and buffering. "Northup, RR, and JG McColl. Phenols and organic carbon in litter leachates and effects of acidity. Agronomy Abstracts. 1990 Annual Meetings, October 21-26, San Antonio, Texas." Showing the relationship between pH and solubility of organic carbon. Yes, there IS "such a thing" as organic carbon. And the solubility of phenolic substances is strongly influenced by pH, because the phenol, carboxylic acids in forest floors are mostly DEPROTONATED. So they provide BUFFERING upon protonation by the "acid" in "acid rain". But they basically only soluble while they are DEPROTONATED. All about pH and buffering. Surely you can expose my fraud and give me another, "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer.." and then explain why the impact is so much more pronounced, depending on the availability of buffers in solution... The "exponential effects" and the "basicity scale" and how the "magnitude of effect" can be calculated from "delta(solution)". Yes, you published it all RIGHT HERE at climate-debate.com, where future generations of scientists will always be able to cite it. Edited on 13-05-2026 15:42
13-05-2026 19:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure what the Grammer Police, so concerned about improper use of terms such as "they", "them" and "their" would say about, "As the cat buries their excretions.." Robert, I'm glad you asked. The answer, quite frankly, is that scientists really care about quantity. Just ask any scientist. Quantity is a rather big deal. If the quantity being discussed is singular, but then someone begins exceeding the limit with multiples, that's a "no go" error. It's a problem that needs to be resolved before the discussion or project can proceed. Yes, I'm aware that laymen such as yourself have probably never formally learned about quantity and satisfying requirements, so you don't understand how you throw essentially everything out the window when you inadvertently switch from a subject of "someone" (singular) to a pronoun such as "they" (multiple), without correcting the multiplicity or addressing the requirements of the parallel structure. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm here for you. It's just more indication that he doesn't know English. It's also why he doesn't understand what 'subjective' and 'objective' even mean. 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
13-05-2026 19:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: Scientists use a lot of quantitative terms that the layman may think are just some kind of adjective. Quantitative is not a term or an adjective. Im a BM wrote: "Alkalinity", for example, is most often used to refer to a quantity reported as moles per liter H+ neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter CaCO3 equivalents. Alkalinity is not a chemical or a quantity. Im a BM wrote: The decline in sea water "alkalinity" isn't some abstract movement on the pH scale, barely discernable because the sea is so well buffered against pH change. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Showing the relationship between pH and solubility of organic carbon. Yes, there IS "such a thing" as organic carbon. And the solubility of phenolic substances is strongly influenced by pH, because the phenol, carboxylic acids in forest floors are mostly DEPROTONATED. So they provide BUFFERING upon protonation by the "acid" in "acid rain". But they basically only soluble while they are DEPROTONATED. All about pH and buffering. Carbon is not organic. Phenolic is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Protonation is not a word. Deprotonated is not a word. Rain is naturally acidic. Im a BM wrote: ....deleted remaining whining and irrelevant material... You are no chemist. You are no scientist. You don't even know English. You deny science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't create energy out of nothing. 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
13-05-2026 19:50
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3285)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure what the Grammer Police, so concerned about improper use of terms such as "they", "them" and "their" would say about, "As the cat buries their excretions.." Robert, I'm glad you asked. The answer, quite frankly, is that scientists really care about quantity. Just ask any scientist. Quantity is a rather big deal. If the quantity being discussed is singular, but then someone begins exceeding the limit with multiples, that's a "no go" error. It's a problem that needs to be resolved before the discussion or project can proceed. Yes, I'm aware that laymen such as yourself have probably never formally learned about quantity and satisfying requirements, so you don't understand how you throw essentially everything out the window when you inadvertently switch from a subject of "someone" (singular) to a pronoun such as "they" (multiple), without correcting the multiplicity or addressing the requirements of the parallel structure. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'm here for you. Scientists use a lot of quantitative terms that the layman may think are just some kind of adjective. "Alkalinity", for example, is most often used to refer to a quantity reported as moles per liter H+ neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter CaCO3 equivalents. The decline in sea water "alkalinity" isn't some abstract movement on the pH scale, barely discernable because the sea is so well buffered against pH change. "pH" is another quantitative term, but it is an exponential function, so it gets a little complicated. pH = -log(H+). Scientists are strictly faithful to math, so they must accept the consequences for the equations. pH CAN and WILL be BELOW ZERO if (H+) > 1.0 Tell your little friend that is IS possible, even if we let him call pH a "ratio". I'm "woke" enough now to give him some leeway to self identify as "chemist", regardless of what the scientists wrote on his Education Certificate. But he doesn't get to redefine the quantitative terms used in chemistry. pH can only be a "ratio" until you try to use in ANY equations. Actual "chemists" use pH in a LOT of equations. For example, from 1990 at the big conference... when YOU first taught ME about pH and buffering. "Northup, RR, and JG McColl. Phenols and organic carbon in litter leachates and effects of acidity. Agronomy Abstracts. 1990 Annual Meetings, October 21-26, San Antonio, Texas." Showing the relationship between pH and solubility of organic carbon. Yes, there IS "such a thing" as organic carbon. And the solubility of phenolic substances is strongly influenced by pH, because the phenol, carboxylic acids in forest floors are mostly DEPROTONATED. So they provide BUFFERING upon protonation by the "acid" in "acid rain". But they basically only soluble while they are DEPROTONATED. All about pH and buffering. Surely you can expose my fraud and give me another, "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer.." and then explain why the impact is so much more pronounced, depending on the availability of buffers in solution... The "exponential effects" and the "basicity scale" and how the "magnitude of effect" can be calculated from "delta(solution)". Yes, you published it all RIGHT HERE at climate-debate.com, where future generations of scientists will always be able to cite it.[/quote]
13-05-2026 20:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (23897)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted mindless repetition... Stop spamming. 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

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Does Anyone Know Anything about Polyphenols?: