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

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You could learn a lot if you actually READ what Patricio posted.

He learned that Patricio ignores the same theories of science you do, that he was totally unprepared to deal with the theories of science he ignored, and that he was yet another 'warmazombie', or believer in the Church of Global Warming.

Im a BM wrote:
He explained very clearly the definition of "chemical", what the carbonate ion is, and how carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is most certainly a chemical. Carbonates are not the same as carbonate. Phenol is not the same as phenols. Enjoy THAT word game.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
But Patricio explains the inorganic versus organic carbon thing very well.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
No metadata tags because the carbon atom can change its status from inorganic to organic, or visa versa, through spontaneous oxidation reduction reactions.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. There is no such change of state.
Carbon is stable. It does not spontaneously combust.

Im a BM wrote:
It's about what the carbon atom is bonded to and its oxidation state. Inorganic carbon is oxidized carbon. Organic carbon is reduced carbon. Organic carbon atoms are bonded to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms. Inorganic carbon atoms are bonded to oxygen.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
I doubt that you will be able to comprehend this.

Patricio clearly DOES comprehend this.

He and I could have "gibber babble" conversations and understand each other.

He is what they call "scientifically literate".

The same gibber babble. Even the same quoting problems. I suspect Patricio is really just another one of your socks.

My "sock" is doing a better job than I was ever able to.

Maybe my "sock" and I should run off and get married, so we can co-author a book together and live happily ever after. My "sock" would have to be first author because his writing skills put mine to shame.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You could learn a lot if you actually READ what Patricio posted.

He learned that Patricio ignores the same theories of science you do, that he was totally unprepared to deal with the theories of science he ignored, and that he was yet another 'warmazombie', or believer in the Church of Global Warming.

Im a BM wrote:
He explained very clearly the definition of "chemical", what the carbonate ion is, and how carbonate ion, CO3(2-) is most certainly a chemical. Carbonates are not the same as carbonate. Phenol is not the same as phenols. Enjoy THAT word game.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Phenol is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
But Patricio explains the inorganic versus organic carbon thing very well.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic.

Im a BM wrote:
No metadata tags because the carbon atom can change its status from inorganic to organic, or visa versa, through spontaneous oxidation reduction reactions.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not inorganic. There is no such change of state.
Carbon is stable. It does not spontaneously combust.

Im a BM wrote:
It's about what the carbon atom is bonded to and its oxidation state. Inorganic carbon is oxidized carbon. Organic carbon is reduced carbon. Organic carbon atoms are bonded to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms. Inorganic carbon atoms are bonded to oxygen.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
I doubt that you will be able to comprehend this.

Patricio clearly DOES comprehend this.

He and I could have "gibber babble" conversations and understand each other.

He is what they call "scientifically literate".

The same gibber babble. Even the same quoting problems. I suspect Patricio is really just another one of your socks.

My "sock" is doing a better job than I was ever able to.

Maybe my "sock" and I should run off and get married, so we can co-author a book together and live happily ever after. My "sock" would have to be first author because his writing skills put mine to shame.

You can't marry yourself, Robert.

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.
...deleted remaining repetitious spam...

Into the Night wrote:

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.
...deleted remaining repetitious spam...

Fossils aren't used as fuel.
CO2 is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.


Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
This religious nut pretends that it's a "chemist"
It does not even know that it's a TROLL
Delusional, it LIES and LIES, relentless
Don't pity it, for it does not have a soul

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
REVISED EDITION: Ion names have been substituted with chemical formulas.
Ions are CHEMICALS with a charge. Fluoride ion, F-, has a negative charge.

sealover wrote:
To avoid any confusion regarding categories of chemicals, ion formulas are used.

This thread was intended to have been a place of scientific discussion about fossil fuel substitution for reduced emission of CO2, Hg, Pb, As, Cd, etc, to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Topics ranging from exploiting/subsidizing the abundant supply of inexpensive CH4 as a substitute for coal in power plants, to oxidizing fuel for energy using something other than O2 as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant), thereby emitting something other than CO2 as the waste product.

sealover wrote:
For example, CH4 could be fed to SO4(2-) reducing bacteria bred in sea H2O under low O2 conditions to generate alkalinity (as CO3[2-]) rather than CO2 as the oxidized inorganic C 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 CH4 oxidizing, SO4(2-) reducing bacteria.

sealover wrote:
In terms of bang for the buck on calories, CH4 gives you more than three times as many calories per dollar as the most affordably priced livestock feed. As cold-blooded livestock, CH4-oxidizing, SO4(2-)-reducing bacteria transform at least five times more feed calories into biomass, kg per kg, than do cattle. As a thought experiment - a candle made of tallow from cattle, versus a candle made of paraffins derived from farm-bred CH4-oxidizing, SO4(2-)-reducing bacterial biomass. 10 cents worth of methane can produce AT LEAST as much candle wax as a dollar fifty's worth of the least expensive cattle feed. And it's production COUNTERACTED excessive CO2 in the atmosphere by producing CO3(2-). The cattle, in contrast, emitted tons of CO2 and some CH4 as well.

sealover wrote:
Aerobic oxidation of CH4 organic C (e.g. combustion or respiration) employs O2, as terminal electron acceptor and produces CO2 as the oxidized (inorganic) C product:
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O

sealover wrote:
Anaerobic oxidation of CH4 organic C by anaerobic bacteria can employ oxyanions such as SO4(2-), NO3-, AsO4(3-), PO4(3-), borate, molybdate, selenate, nitrite, sulfite, arsenite, and many others as terminal electron electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions. Such anaerobic metabolism produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-),
[quote][b]sealover wrote:
Generic reaction: CH4 + XOn(y-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + (H2X, X2, XH4+)

CH4 + SO4(2-) + = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S
CH4 + 2NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + N2
CH4 + NO3- = CO3(2-) + H2O + NH4+[/b]

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
REVISED EDITION: Ion names have been substituted with chemical formulas.
Ions are CHEMICALS with a charge. Fluoride ion, F-, has a negative charge.

Fluoride is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
To avoid any confusion regarding categories of chemicals, ion formulas are used.

?

Science is not a discussion.
Fossils are not used as fuel.
You cannot change the partial pressure of mercury.
Lead is not in the atmosphere.
Arsenic is not in the atmosphere.
Cadmium is not in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for life on Earth. Why do you want to 'reduce its emission'?

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

sealover wrote:
[b?[/b]

Methane cannot substitute for coal.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.

sealover wrote:?

SO4(2-) is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
Carbon dioxide is not carbon.
Carbon is not inorganic.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.
There is no such thing as a 'biomass'.
Bacteria is not diesel fuel.

sealover wrote:?

Cattle don't eat methane.
Cattle are not cold blooded.
SO4(2-) is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'biomass'.
Bacteria do not produce paraffin.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.

It is okay to emit carbon dioxide and/or methane.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

sealover wrote:?

Methane is not carbon.
Carbon is not organic.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbon is not inorganic.
Carbon dioxide is not carbon.

sealover wrote:?[/b]

Methane is not carbon.
Carbon is not organic.
Oxyanions is not a chemical.
SO4(2-) is not a chemical.
NO3- is not a chemical.
As04(3-) is not a chemical.
PO4(3-) is not a chemical.
Borate is not a chemical.
Molybdate is not a chemical.
Selenate is not a chemical.
Nitrite is not a chemical.
Sulfite is not a chemical.
Arsenite is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
CO3(-2) is not a chemical.
XOn(y-) is not a chemical.
(H2X, X2, XH4+) is not a chemical.
NH4+ is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Stop trolling with the ABSURD lists of everything that is "not a chemical"

Not a chemical?

You are certainly not a CHEMIST!

sealover wrote: Did I forget to mention that N2O and NO are very powerful greenhouse gases?

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Did I forget to mention that N2O and NO are very powerful greenhouse gases?

Is there such a thing as greenhouse gas? Are N2O and NO also magical leprechauns? Those aren't real either so I had to ask.

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

Why is it that leftists who are too stupid to learn always insist that minorities are too stupid to learn and must therefore be given DEI positions and treated as though they are four-year-olds?

I'll tell you the correct answer. You were at fault. You suck as a teacher/tutor and you couldn't even explain simple concepts. You probably wouldn't define any terms, ... likely because you don't understand what any of them mean. You were probably in the middle of explaining why water never evaporates when they began asking questions about why they can't observe this global climate that you insist is "real". You were probably ordered by your slave-masters at the DNC to impose the LGBTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag onto them while you still had them as a captive audience, before you got fired for incompetence, so you OBEYED and you made a confusing diagram that would encourage as many as possible to deny science after becoming frustrated.

I feel sorry for anyone turning to you for answers.

Im a BM wrote: There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Im a BM wrote: The periodic table of the elements was created in 1869 by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, who sought to bring order to the growing list of known chemical elements by organizing them according to observable patterns in their properties. Mendeleev arranged the elements primarily by increasing atomic mass and grouped them into rows and columns so that elements with similar chemical behaviors—such as forming similar compounds or exhibiting similar reactivity—fell into the same vertical columns. His key insight was the recognition of "periodicity," the repeating pattern of properties at regular intervals, which gave the table both its name and its predictive power. Importantly, Mendeleev left intentional gaps in his table where no known element fit, and he described the expected properties of these missing elements with remarkable accuracy, demonstrating the robustness of his system. The language used in forming and describing the periodic table was rooted in the concepts of atomic theory emerging at the time—terms like "atomic weight," "valence," and "chemical family"—and over time it evolved to incorporate the modern concept of atomic number following Henry Moseley's work in the early 20th century. Today's periodic table retains Mendeleev's original logical structure while expressing it in more precise physical terms, reflecting its deep connection to the underlying organization of matter.

Im a BM wrote: Someone with a cultural tradition of reading Arabic or Hebrew has to get used to going the opposite way on the Periodic Table. The rows begin from left to right, the opposite of what one is used to reading Arabic or Hebrew.

Im a BM wrote: The continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table isn't so obvious to one who is not accustomed to reading from left to right

Im a BM wrote:I can only imagine what IBdaMann hopes to accomplish with his comments.

Im a BM wrote: I don't see how anyone reading IBdaMann's comments is going to learn anything of value from them.

Im a BM wrote: I notice the words "deny science" in there.

Im a BM wrote: At least I actually STUDIED this thing that I "deny", and I know what it IS.

Im a BM wrote:I don't have to make shit up to support my otherwise unsupported assertions.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Incorrect. Language was not considered. The originator of the periodic table did not speak English. All of Mendeleev's work was published in Russian.

The repeating pattern of properties, however, at regular intervals, gave the developing table a behavioral periodicity from which the name "periodic table" arose, as well as a certain predictive power of how matter will behave.

Im a BM wrote: The periodic table of the elements was created in 1869 by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, who sought to bring order to the growing list of known chemical elements by organizing them according to observable patterns in their properties. Mendeleev arranged the elements primarily by increasing atomic mass and grouped them into rows and columns so that elements with similar chemical behaviors—such as forming similar compounds or exhibiting similar reactivity—fell into the same vertical columns. His key insight was the recognition of "periodicity," the repeating pattern of properties at regular intervals, which gave the table both its name and its predictive power. Importantly, Mendeleev left intentional gaps in his table where no known element fit, and he described the expected properties of these missing elements with remarkable accuracy, demonstrating the robustness of his system. The language used in forming and describing the periodic table was rooted in the concepts of atomic theory emerging at the time—terms like "atomic weight," "valence," and "chemical family"—and over time it evolved to incorporate the modern concept of atomic number following Henry Moseley's work in the early 20th century. Today's periodic table retains Mendeleev's original logical structure while expressing it in more precise physical terms, reflecting its deep connection to the underlying organization of matter.

I checked. You copied this verbatim from an AI assistant.

Im a BM wrote: Someone with a cultural tradition of reading Arabic or Hebrew has to get used to going the opposite way on the Periodic Table. The rows begin from left to right, the opposite of what one is used to reading Arabic or Hebrew.

This has absolutely no bearing on an ability to use a table. Also, no Arab or Hebrew has ever expressed any cultural difficulty in using the periodic table.

Im a BM wrote: The continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table isn't so obvious to one who is not accustomed to reading from left to right

What makes you assert this? Are you pretending to speak for other people?

Im a BM wrote:I can only imagine what IBdaMann hopes to accomplish with his comments.

Must you rely on your imagination because you cannot read my words?

Im a BM wrote: I don't see how anyone reading IBdaMann's comments is going to learn anything of value from them.

When did this suddenly become about the harsh limitations of your imagination?

Im a BM wrote: I notice the words "deny science" in there.

Spoken as a functional illiterate who nonetheless recognizes a "STOP" sign.

Im a BM wrote: At least I actually STUDIED this thing that I "deny", and I know what it IS.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a scientifically illiterate buffoon who knows no other way than to spam and whine about being a VICTIM!

Im a BM wrote:I don't have to make shit up to support my otherwise unsupported assertions.

... because you never actually support your unsupported assertions, nor do you define your terms, nor do you answer clarification questions asked of you.

You are not a scientist; you are a firebrand preacher of a WACKY religion based on HATRED, intolerance and science/math denial.

Im a BM wrote:There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Im a BM wrote:Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to SIMULTANEOUSLY create the Periodic Table by two guys in two different countries, unknown to each other.

Im a BM wrote:There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Im a BM wrote:Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to SIMULTANEOUSLY create the Periodic Table by two guys in two different countries, unknown to each other.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Incorrect. Language was not considered. The originator of the periodic table did not speak English. All of Mendeleev's work was published in Russian.

The repeating pattern of properties, however, at regular intervals, gave the developing table a behavioral periodicity from which the name "periodic table" arose, as well as a certain predictive power of how matter will behave.

Im a BM wrote: The periodic table of the elements was created in 1869 by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, who sought to bring order to the growing list of known chemical elements by organizing them according to observable patterns in their properties. Mendeleev arranged the elements primarily by increasing atomic mass and grouped them into rows and columns so that elements with similar chemical behaviors—such as forming similar compounds or exhibiting similar reactivity—fell into the same vertical columns. His key insight was the recognition of "periodicity," the repeating pattern of properties at regular intervals, which gave the table both its name and its predictive power. Importantly, Mendeleev left intentional gaps in his table where no known element fit, and he described the expected properties of these missing elements with remarkable accuracy, demonstrating the robustness of his system. The language used in forming and describing the periodic table was rooted in the concepts of atomic theory emerging at the time—terms like "atomic weight," "valence," and "chemical family"—and over time it evolved to incorporate the modern concept of atomic number following Henry Moseley's work in the early 20th century. Today's periodic table retains Mendeleev's original logical structure while expressing it in more precise physical terms, reflecting its deep connection to the underlying organization of matter.

I checked. You copied this verbatim from an AI assistant.

Im a BM wrote: Someone with a cultural tradition of reading Arabic or Hebrew has to get used to going the opposite way on the Periodic Table. The rows begin from left to right, the opposite of what one is used to reading Arabic or Hebrew.

This has absolutely no bearing on an ability to use a table. Also, no Arab or Hebrew has ever expressed any cultural difficulty in using the periodic table.

Im a BM wrote: The continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table isn't so obvious to one who is not accustomed to reading from left to right

What makes you assert this? Are you pretending to speak for other people?

Im a BM wrote:I can only imagine what IBdaMann hopes to accomplish with his comments.

Must you rely on your imagination because you cannot read my words?

Im a BM wrote: I don't see how anyone reading IBdaMann's comments is going to learn anything of value from them.

When did this suddenly become about the harsh limitations of your imagination?

Im a BM wrote: I notice the words "deny science" in there.

Spoken as a functional illiterate who nonetheless recognizes a "STOP" sign.

Im a BM wrote: At least I actually STUDIED this thing that I "deny", and I know what it IS.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a scientifically illiterate buffoon who knows no other way than to spam and whine about being a VICTIM!

Im a BM wrote:I don't have to make shit up to support my otherwise unsupported assertions.

... because you never actually support your unsupported assertions, nor do you define your terms, nor do you answer clarification questions asked of you.

You are not a scientist; you are a firebrand preacher of a WACKY religion based on HATRED, intolerance and science/math denial.

sealover wrote: Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to ...

Im a BM wrote:There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Im a BM wrote:Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to SIMULTANEOUSLY create the Periodic Table by two guys in two different countries, unknown to each other.

Im a BM wrote:Someone with a cultural tradition of reading Arabic or Hebrew has to get used to going the opposite way on the Periodic Table. The rows begin from left to right, the opposite of what one is used to reading Arabic or Hebrew.

The continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table isn't so obvious to one who is not accustomed to reading from left to right, beginning at the top and going down.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to ...

Nope. Dial it back. You need to be supporting your assertion, not fleeing from it. You need to identify those Hebrew and Arabic speakers who encountered difficulty learning the periodic table of the elements due to the cultural bias of the language used.

Get on it.

Im a BM wrote:There is a cultural bias based on how the English language is presented when written on a page. That bias was used to organize the Periodic Table.

Im a BM wrote:Russian and GERMAN were the TWO languages used to SIMULTANEOUSLY create the Periodic Table by two guys in two different countries, unknown to each other.

Too funny!

Im a BM wrote:Someone with a cultural tradition of reading Arabic or Hebrew has to get used to going the opposite way on the Periodic Table. The rows begin from left to right, the opposite of what one is used to reading Arabic or Hebrew.

The continuity of atomic numbers in the Periodic Table isn't so obvious to one who is not accustomed to reading from left to right, beginning at the top and going down.

You have one job: identify those Hebrew and Arabic speakers who encountered difficulty learning the periodic table of the elements due to the cultural bias of the language used.

Stay focused. Don't be distracted.


While we're at it, I'd like to remind you of the outstanding questions you haven't answered:

1. What is the formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics, math, logic and economics? You have been unable to define your core term for your entire tenure at this site.

2. What fuels do fossils burn, and what fossils are burned as fuels?

3. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow changing to any discernible extent?

4. Why do you deny the carbon cycle, and instead preach that CO2 simply accumulates in the ocean due to water never evaporating?

5. Why do you claim that lipids are hydrocarbons?

6. Why should any rational adult believe as you do that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature somehow spontaneously increases in temperature in violation of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann?

7. Why do you claim that Dominican coral reefs were destroyed?

8. How can one distinguish "man-made" carbon from wholesome, Climate-formed carbon that is meticulously hand-crafted naturally in the loving warmth of Global Warming?




You're not just a troll, you are a craven coward who is desperate to be relevant; unfortunately, mindless spamming is the only way you know to pursue such.

.

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann, there is only ONE troll left who still wants to play with you