Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..

sealover wrote:
...deleted idiot image...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

[b]sealover wrote:
[/b]
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

sealover wrote:
"sealover" moved to FACEBOOK "Climate change reality forum" group, among others.

sealover wrote:
[center]...deleted advertisement...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

[b]sealover wrote:
[/b]
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

sealover wrote:
As for the picture that another member kindly posted...
...deleted advertisement...

sealover wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

"sealover" moved to FACEBOOK "Climate change reality forum" group, among others.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

"sealover" moved to FACEBOOK "Climate change reality forum" group, among others.

Facebook is not real, but you will never know

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

"sealover" moved to FACEBOOK "Climate change reality forum" group, among others.

Facebook is not real, but you will never know

I found this clip on FB.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1326074922643542/?referral_source=aggregation_page

119000000 views.

Redbull reels. Looks real to me.

Impressive.

Blows Chase Bishop out of the water.

sealover wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

[b]sealover wrote:

[/b]
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as bicarbonate and carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel would be more than offset by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.
...deleted spam...

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere. Sulfur is the most common "impurity" in "dirty" coal. And "clean coal" is a meaningless buzzword used for propaganda.

Im a BM wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

Im a BM wrote:
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This carbonate ion "waste" could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel or jet fuel would be offset many times by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere. Sulfur is the most common "impurity" in "dirty" coal. And "clean coal" is a meaningless buzzword used for propaganda.

Science is not a discussion. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Coal is not sulfur. Coal can burn quite cleanly in a modern plant.
There is no mercury in the atmosphere.
There is no lead in the atmosphere.
There is no arsenic in the atmosphere.
There is no cadmium in the atmosphere.
There is no sulfur in the atmosphere.
Other than mercury, all of these are solids at room temperature. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature.

Im a BM wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

Methane is common in power plants. So is coal. Nothing else is oxygen other than oxygen. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon dioxide is a necessary and naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This carbonate ion "waste" could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel or jet fuel would be offset many times by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

Methane does not contain sulfur. Sulfate is not a chemical. It cannot be reduced. Alkalinity is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
If I am overly rigid about the definition,

Im a BM wrote:
there is no carbon in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Because there is no pure, elemental carbon (such as diamond) in the air.

Im a BM wrote:
However, there are chemical compounds of carbon in the air. Carbon dioxide and methane, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps there is very little pure, elemental sulfur in the atmosphere. There are certainly chemical compounds of sulfur in the atmosphere. Sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, SOx's of all variety, and even volatile organic sulfur compounds.

Im a BM wrote:
Lead, arsenic, and cadmium are not found in the atmosphere in pure, elemental form.

Im a BM wrote:
Unfiltered emissions from dirty coal combustion can certainly contain compounds of lead, arsenic, and cadmium.

Im a BM wrote:
What about mercury?

Even by the most rigid, narrow definition, there IS mercury in the atmosphere. Vapor of pure, elemental mercury is present in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is the dominant chemical form of mercury in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:

According to Google: "The Earth's atmosphere currently holds about 4000 metric tons of mercury.." This is more than seven times as much mercury as is estimated to have been in the pre industrial atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God. Nobody here has ever claimed that Google IS God.

Im a BM wrote:
However, Google is FAR more likely to present accurate scientific information

Im a BM wrote:
than the prolific Chemistry Clown whose 23000 plus posts often INSIST that "Google is not God".

Im a BM wrote:
As if that wins some sort of "argument" with someone.

Im a BM wrote:
Google is not God, but it provides accurate information about how elemental mercury emits vapor pressure if it is in contact with the atmosphere at above freezing temperature.

Im a BM wrote:
Pure, elemental mercury is in the air we breathe. Thanks to the coal burners and gold miners.

Im a BM wrote:
Google ALSO notes that; "The average atmospheric residence time for gaseous elemental mercury (Hg zero valent superscript) is 0.5 to 2 years,

Im a BM wrote:
allowing for long distance transport before it is oxidized to more reactive forms.

Im a BM wrote:
In contrast, reactive oxidized mercury has a much shorter lifespan of a few days to a few weeks due to its higher water solubility and reactivity."

Im a BM wrote:
So, the good news is that if we knock it off with the clumsy gold mining practices

Im a BM wrote:
and dirty coal combustion,

Im a BM wrote:
in as little as half a year the quantity of mercury in the atmosphere will drop far below the 4000 metric tons it is today.

Im a BM wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere. Sulfur is the most common "impurity" in "dirty" coal. And "clean coal" is a meaningless buzzword used for propaganda.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This carbonate ion "waste" could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel or jet fuel would be offset many times by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

Just say "no" to SPAM!

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc, to the atmosphere. Sulfur is the most common "impurity" in "dirty" coal. And "clean coal" is a meaningless buzzword used for propaganda.

Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive methane as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than oxygen as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than carbon dioxide as the waste product.

For example, methane could be fed to sulfate reducing bacteria bred in sea water under low oxygen conditions to generate alkalinity (as carbonate ions) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. This carbonate ion "waste" could be flushed to the sea to counteract ocean acidification. The bacterial biomass could be harvested for fuel, livestock feed, and fertilizer. CO2 emissions from bacterial diesel or jet fuel would be offset many times by the alkalinity generated by the methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria.

As for the picture that another member kindly posted...

I began initial development of this spiral version of the Periodic Table of Elements while I was a chemistry instructor at a tribal college in northern California, 25 years ago.

The Native American students were having trouble making sense of the Periodic Table.

The continuity of the atomic numbers is not self evident.

One must imagine the connection from the end of one line on the right side, to the beginning of the next line below on the left side, in order to follow the continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table.

This is further complicated by those two lines of elements shown separately at the bottom of the Periodic Table (lanthanide and actinides)

To follow the continuity of atomic numbers, one must imagine a connection from the middle of one line above, to the left edge of one of the lines at the bottom, and then BACK UP to the middle of that line higher in the Periodic Table.

When I started sketching the Periodic Table as a SPIRAL up on the whiteboard, all the students suddenly seemed to get it.

Suddenly, the continuity of atomic numbers was obvious to them.

The spatial organization of the Periodic Table of Elements finally made sense.

I later developed it into a teaching tool.

A good quick test of whether or not a student understood the Periodic Table was to see if they could explain how the spiral version showed exactly the same thing, only with a different spatial orientation.

The poster version shows the Periodic Table of Elements immediately below the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, in the same color scheme.

The Noble gases, column 18 on the far right of the Periodic Table of Elements, is colored sky blue.

Arc 18 of the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, colored sky blue, comes down to where it meets column 18 in the underlying Periodic Table.

One can follow the sky blue arc and column from top to bottom, see where the sky blue 18s meet in the middle, and be oriented to how the two presentations of elemental information are the same.

Just say "no" to SPAM!

Are your needs being met here at Climate Debate?

Im a BM wrote:

Yes, my needs are being met. Beginning about six months ago.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Yes, my needs are being met. Beginning about six months ago.

Your need to spam anyway...

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night, you really need to share your scientific genius with the entire world.

Im a BM wrote:

If you are correct that "any idiot can write a paper", and you are certainly an idiot, you are therefore qualified to write a paper.

Of course, you must be selective about where you publish.

Im a BM wrote:

Don't submit to a "shit rag" such as Nature. You have made it clear why this is not a real scientific journal.

Im a BM wrote:

Don't get tricked into submitting to some FAKE journal about a field of chemistry that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Im a BM wrote:

As you have repeated hundreds of times, literally, you are well aware that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Don't get tricked into submitting your genius paper to a journal called "Biogeochemistry". Because even if your paper then gets cited in several hundred OTHER new peer-reviewed research papers, it will just be meaningless buzzwords from people who deny science.

Im a BM wrote:

But you are the ONLY "chemist" in the world, apparently, who actually knows what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Those fake chemists are all telling the same LIE that pH = -log(H+). They refuse to tell us the truth about pH being a "ratio". Please use your idiot qualifications to write a paper that explains the truth about "chemistry" from a REAL "chemist".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night, you really need to share your scientific genius with the entire world.

I share it with enough people.

Im a BM wrote:

If you are correct that "any idiot can write a paper", and you are certainly an idiot, you are therefore qualified to write a paper.

Of course, you must be selective about where you publish.

Random phrases ignored.

Im a BM wrote:

Don't submit to a "shit rag" such as Nature. You have made it clear why this is not a real scientific journal.

Science is not a journal, magazine, paper, website, book, or citation.

Im a BM wrote:

Don't get tricked into submitting to some FAKE journal about a field of chemistry that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Chemistry is not a journal, magazine, paper, website, book, or citation.

Im a BM wrote:

As you have repeated hundreds of times, literally, you are well aware that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'". Don't get tricked into submitting your genius paper to a journal called "Biogeochemistry". Because even if your paper then gets cited in several hundred OTHER new peer-reviewed research papers, it will just be meaningless buzzwords from people who deny science.

There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Science is not a paper. Science is not a peer review. Science does not use consensus. Science has no voting bloc. You deny science and chemistry. Neither is buzzwords. You routinely discard the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:

But you are the ONLY "chemist" in the world, apparently, who actually knows what pH IS.

Lots of people know what pH is. You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Please share the secret for the benefit of chemists everywhere, and write a paper that explains it more clearly than a half sentence "RQAA" reference to a mysterious "ratio". Then they will understand that the pH meters are LYING about the chemical conditions of an aqueous solution in which hydrogen ion is present at greater than one mole per liter. Pool acid, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
Those fake chemists are all telling the same LIE that pH = -log(H+). They refuse to tell us the truth about pH being a "ratio". Please use your idiot qualifications to write a paper that explains the truth about "chemistry" from a REAL "chemist".

sealover wrote:
Coal fired power plants could have their carbon dioxide emissions reduced by at least 40% (per BTU), just by retrofitting them to use methane instead.

sealover wrote:
About half the anthropogenic mercury entering the environment comes from coal fired power plants. Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

sealover wrote:
We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

sealover wrote:
It's actually cheaper (per BTU) than coal now, and the supply is on the increase.

sealover wrote:
It is absurd to subsidize continued use of coal to compensate losses.

sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize retrofitting coal-fired power plants to use methane.

sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize impoverished nations to be able to purchase our natural gas at a better price than coal.

sealover wrote:
A HUGE reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved relatively rapidly by switching from coal to natural gas.

sealover wrote:
It would also help us get the lead out. And the mercury, arsenic, cadmium...

sealover wrote:
In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal.

sealover wrote:
It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel.

sealover wrote:
As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel.

sealover wrote:
South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane.

sealover wrote:
Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel.

sealover wrote:
Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal.

sealover wrote:
On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production.

sealover wrote:
Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel.

sealover wrote:
A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum.

sealover wrote:
We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel.

sealover wrote:
It actually makes a whole lot of difference.

Im a BM wrote:
I have some questions for God and Google.

Im a BM wrote:
"Is pH a 'ratio'?"

Google says; "pH isn't a simple ratio, but it's derived from the ratio of hydrogen ions (H+) to hydroxide ions (OH-), expressed on a logarithmic scale.."

Im a BM wrote:
"Can pH be less than zero?"

Google says: "Yes, pH can be below 0 in extremely acidic solutions with hydrogen ion concentrations greater than 1 molar (M), such as concentrated hydrochloric acid (e.g. 12M HCl has pH about -1.08. While the common 0-14 range is typical for dilute solutions, the pH scale is technically open ended.. "

Im a BM wrote:
Google and Into the Night often disagree on points of science.

Im a BM wrote:
I have yet to see a single example where Into the Night was correct when Google was not. The contrary happens every time I fact check the idiot.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is not God! Omnicience is not his strong suit.

"RQAA. Go back and read it again."

Go back and read WHAT again? The question was NEVER answered.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN says "Math error" when confronted with pH = -log(H+), or -log(1) = 0

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I have some questions for God and Google.

...annnnnd some more made up shit you claim comes from Google....

Im a BM wrote:
"Is pH a 'ratio'?"

Google says; "pH isn't a simple ratio, but it's derived from the ratio of hydrogen ions (H+) to hydroxide ions (OH-), expressed on a logarithmic scale.."

pH is a ratio.

Im a BM wrote:
"Can pH be less than zero?"

Google says: "Yes, pH can be below 0 in extremely acidic solutions with hydrogen ion concentrations greater than 1 molar (M), such as concentrated hydrochloric acid (e.g. 12M HCl has pH about -1.08. While the common 0-14 range is typical for dilute solutions, the pH scale is technically open ended.. "

It is not possible for pH to be less than zero or greater than 14.

Im a BM wrote:
Google and Into the Night often disagree on points of science.

You deny science. You are not Google.

Im a BM wrote:
I have yet to see a single example where Into the Night was correct when Google was not. The contrary happens every time I fact check the idiot.

You are not Google. Go learn what a 'fact' is. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is not God! Omnicience is not his strong suit.

"RQAA. Go back and read it again."

Go back and read WHAT again? The question was NEVER answered.

Yes it was. Go back and read it again. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN says "Math error" when confronted with pH = -log(H+), or -log(1) = 0

Math error. Already explained. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
"pH is a ratio." - Into the Night

This is as close as ITN has ever gotten to providing his "alternative facts" definition for pH.

Im a BM wrote:

"It is not possible for pH to be less than zero or above 14." - Into the Night

This would be fine if it were just a rookie mistake. But after more than three and a half years of repetition, it is more indicative of chronic scientific illiteracy.

pH is the NEGATIVE LOGARITHM of a quantity that can be construed as derived from the "ratio" of H+ ions to OH- ions.

Im a BM wrote:
But then it is also MATHMATICAL illiteracy on display by Into the Night.

pH = -log(H+), according to its ACTUAL DEFINITION.

Im a BM wrote:
-log(1) = 0. This is a math FACT. -log(>1) = <0. This is also a math FACT.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps Into the Night would insist it is not physically possible for a solution to hold 1.0 or more moles per liter of hydrogen ion?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, whatever stupid "rebuttal" comes next, the simple fact remains:

Into the Night is NOT a "chemist" of any kind. He can't even do basic math!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"pH is a ratio." - Into the Night

This is as close as ITN has ever gotten to providing his "alternative facts" definition for pH.

There is no such thing as an 'alternative fact'. Go learn English.

Im a BM wrote:

"It is not possible for pH to be less than zero or above 14." - Into the Night

This would be fine if it were just a rookie mistake. But after more than three and a half years of repetition, it is more indicative of chronic scientific illiteracy.

pH is the NEGATIVE LOGARITHM of a quantity that can be construed as derived from the "ratio" of H+ ions to OH- ions.

Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
But then it is also MATHMATICAL illiteracy on display by Into the Night.

pH = -log(H+), according to its ACTUAL DEFINITION.

Redefinition fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
-log(1) = 0. This is a math FACT. -log(>1) = <0. This is also a math FACT.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps Into the Night would insist it is not physically possible for a solution to hold 1.0 or more moles per liter of hydrogen ion?

Irrelevance fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, whatever stupid "rebuttal" comes next, the simple fact remains:

Into the Night is NOT a "chemist" of any kind. He can't even do basic math!

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Irrelevance fallacy"?

Im a BM wrote:
People who know what pH IS know why the points were highly relevant.

Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log(H+), the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity, H+ moles per liter. NOT a "ratio" of any kind.
There is no unit 'liter' in pH, Robert. You are making shit up again. Redefinition fallacy.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
-log(>1) = <0 Highly relevant because it means that a solution with GREATER than 1.0 moles per liter H+ will have pH LESS THAN ZERO.

Im a BM wrote:
As Google points out, concentrated hydrochloric acid at 12M has pH = -1.08

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Into the Night, we do not recognize your authority to make up your own definitions for chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, you don't know how to cite any of them, or even FIND any of them.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe your secret chemistry Bible has the definition of "pH is a ratio", and that's ALL anyone needs to know about it. It appears to be all that YOU know about it.

Im a BM wrote:
Too bad nobody who actually understands science wants to discuss these things.

Im a BM wrote:
I guess that's okay, because they are certainly READING it. Going out of their way to find it, in fact. It is gratifying to see how many new "views" they keep racking up.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Irrelevance fallacy"?

Yup. Your fallacies are YOUR problem. Only YOU can correct them.

Im a BM wrote:
People who know what pH IS know why the points were highly relevant.

Irrelevance fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log(H+), the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity, H+ moles per liter. NOT a "ratio" of any kind.
There is no unit 'liter' in pH, Robert. You are making shit up again. Redefinition fallacy.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
-log(>1) = <0 Highly relevant because it means that a solution with GREATER than 1.0 moles per liter H+ will have pH LESS THAN ZERO.

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
As Google points out, concentrated hydrochloric acid at 12M has pH = -1.08

Not possible. You are not Google. Google is not God.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Into the Night, we do not recognize your authority to make up your own definitions for chemistry.

Feeling schizophrenic again? You are only one person, Robert...regardless of how many sock accounts you create.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, you don't know how to cite any of them, or even FIND any of them.

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe your secret chemistry Bible has the definition of "pH is a ratio", and that's ALL anyone needs to know about it. It appears to be all that YOU know about it.

RQAA. Go back and read it, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Too bad nobody who actually understands science wants to discuss these things.

You routinely deny theories of science, including the 1st law of thermodynamics. You routinely think chemistry is buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
I guess that's okay, because they are certainly READING it. Going out of their way to find it, in fact. It is gratifying to see how many new "views" they keep racking up.

Spawning your own views by reading them over and over is just your ego problem, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
I apologize, Into the Night. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

You see, I completely forgot to set up the party for your ten year anniversary about two and a half months ago.

You joined in September, 2015. Ten years of trolling! More posts than ANYONE!

Over its entire lifetime, so far, climate-debate.com has accumulated 1738 members and nearly 110,000 posts. 23,300 of those posts are YOURS!

That makes you, far and away, the single most important member of this site.

Im a BM wrote:
I am ashamed that I forgot to set up something special for your ten year party.

I also forgot IBdaMann's ELEVEN year anniversary, with the first joined date in September, 2014. But he only very briefly dabbled with three posts and didn't return for a year. He didn't join the discussion until about two weeks after YOU did, 10 years ago. I owe him an apology too. September should have been party month. Ten years is a big milestone.

I owe you one. We'll make your ELEVEN year anniversary extra special, okay?