How would YOU know? It's a valid question.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > How would YOU know? It's a valid question. > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

3

25-12-2024 23:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Im a BM wrote: "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" - IBdaMann WRONG! As usual. H+, the hydrogen ion, is a hydrogen atom without its electron. In other words, the hydrogen ion (aka hydrogen cation) is just a naked proton. This is NOT the same as the HYDRONIUM ion, a cation formed by the protonation of a water molecule, forming H3O+. The hydronium ion weighs more than 30 times as much as the hydrogen ion (a proton). Trying to deny your own posts again? Won't work, Robert. YOU were the one trying to claim hydronium is a proton!!! 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
25-12-2024 23:31
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	In the underlying post by IBdaMann, IBdaMann asserts in his own words (edited with bold/italics to assist in its location) the following: "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" This unforced error was NOT in response to MY assertion about ANYTHING related to the "hydronium ion". I virtually NEVER use the term "hydronium" in anything I write here, or anywhere else. I did not ask "Do the terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing?" In which case, his reply could be sarcastic mockery of my stupidity in thinking that there is any possibility they MIGHT be the same thing. I did not assert any variation of "the terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing". In which case, his reply could be sarcastic mockery of the scientifically illiterate assertion. But he initiated the introduction of hydronium into the discussion unprompted, to display his mastery of word games. Not knowing what "hydronium" means. "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" - IBdaMann WRONG! As usual. H+, the hydrogen ion, is a hydrogen atom without its electron. In other words, the hydrogen ion (aka hydrogen cation) is just a naked proton. This is NOT the same as the HYDRONIUM ion, a cation formed by the protonation of a water molecule, forming H3O+. The hydronium ion weighs more than 30 times as much as the hydrogen ion (a proton). A water molecules is bonded to the H+ to form the Hydronium ion, which can NOT be called a "proton". Just in case you missed that. Notice how it is called "protonation" of the water molecule to form H3O+. The concept of H3O+ is oversimplified, though. It is never just ONE water molecule held so tight to the H+ that they are inseparable. The hydrated radius of the hydronium ion is usually at least a couple of water molecules thick. But, NO. "Proton" is NOT synonymous with "hydronium ion" in ANY context. "If your instrumentation indicates pH = 0.0, is your first reaction to check the calibration?" - IBdaMann Oh my God, are you kidding? What would be my first reaction in that moment of absolute GLORY? I would praise the Lord for delivering me the Holy Grail of chemistry! The "magical" acid, with pH = 0.0 You know the one I'm talking about. Just one drop of it would have a more profound impact on a liter of sea water than it would on a liter of pure water. A truly "magical" effect you can't get from regular acid. And they said it couldn't be found... All hail the Church of 1.0 N Hydrochloric Acid! IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Oh, no, "The correct terms used by chemists are hydrogen cations or hydronium ions, when used in the chemistry context of molecules" The words "mirror" and "espejo" refer to the exact same thing, but in the context of Spanish, you have to use the latter. The terms "proton" and "hydronium ion" refer to the same thing, but when discussing quantum mechanics, you have to use the former. Im a BM wrote: 1. Are hydrogen ions, H+, protons? That would be a great translation. Im a BM wrote: 2. Is pH = -log[H+]? If your instrumentation indicates pH = 0.0, is your first reaction to check the calibration? Im a BM wrote: 3. Is -log1 = 0? Put yourself in the shoes of the individual who is asking about your affirmative argument. What equipment accurately measures negative pH? The engineering world wants to know. Ultimately, you need to dial it back and explain how you know the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity. For someone who refuses to answer any questions, you sure demand answers all the time, normally as a distraction when you are the one making the affirmative argument. Edited on 25-12-2024 23:40
26-12-2024 12:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	Im a BM wrote: WRONG! As usual. Well, then give us the correct answer. Why should any rational adult believe that the ocean is losing its alkalinity? Observation: Sea water still evaporates Observation: Earth's erosion never stops, bringing carbonates and bicarbonates into the sea constantly.
27-12-2024 21:34
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	Historic context, if subtlety is insufficient for "magical acid" reference. "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math." - IBdaMann Disclaimer - this reverse buffering effect only applies to a MAGICAL acid. ------------------------------------- In the underlying post by IBdaMann, IBdaMann asserts in his own words (edited with bold/italics to assist in its location) the following: "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" This unforced error was NOT in response to MY assertion about ANYTHING related to the "hydronium ion". I virtually NEVER use the term "hydronium" in anything I write here, or anywhere else. I did not ask "Do the terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing?" In which case, his reply could be sarcastic mockery of my stupidity in thinking that there is any possibility they MIGHT be the same thing. I did not assert any variation of "the terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing". In which case, his reply could be sarcastic mockery of the scientifically illiterate assertion. But he initiated the introduction of hydronium into the discussion unprompted, to display his mastery of word games. Not knowing what "hydronium" means. "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" - IBdaMann WRONG! As usual. H+, the hydrogen ion, is a hydrogen atom without its electron. In other words, the hydrogen ion (aka hydrogen cation) is just a naked proton. This is NOT the same as the HYDRONIUM ion, a cation formed by the protonation of a water molecule, forming H3O+. The hydronium ion weighs more than 30 times as much as the hydrogen ion (a proton). A water molecules is bonded to the H+ to form the Hydronium ion, which can NOT be called a "proton". Just in case you missed that. Notice how it is called "protonation" of the water molecule to form H3O+. The concept of H3O+ is oversimplified, though. It is never just ONE water molecule held so tight to the H+ that they are inseparable. The hydrated radius of the hydronium ion is usually at least a couple of water molecules thick. But, NO. "Proton" is NOT synonymous with "hydronium ion" in ANY context. "If your instrumentation indicates pH = 0.0, is your first reaction to check the calibration?" - IBdaMann Oh my God, are you kidding? What would be my first reaction in that moment of absolute GLORY? I would praise the Lord for delivering me the Holy Grail of chemistry! The "magical" acid, with pH = 0.0 You know the one I'm talking about. Just one drop of it would have a more profound impact on a liter of sea water than it would on a liter of pure water. A truly "magical" effect you can't get from regular acid. And they said it couldn't be found... All hail the Church of 1.0 N Hydrochloric Acid! IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Oh, no, "The correct terms used by chemists are hydrogen cations or hydronium ions, when used in the chemistry context of molecules" The words "mirror" and "espejo" refer to the exact same thing, but in the context of Spanish, you have to use the latter. The terms "proton" and "hydronium ion" refer to the same thing, but when discussing quantum mechanics, you have to use the former. Im a BM wrote: 1. Are hydrogen ions, H+, protons? That would be a great translation. Im a BM wrote: 2. Is pH = -log[H+]? If your instrumentation indicates pH = 0.0, is your first reaction to check the calibration? Im a BM wrote: 3. Is -log1 = 0? Put yourself in the shoes of the individual who is asking about your affirmative argument. What equipment accurately measures negative pH? The engineering world wants to know. Ultimately, you need to dial it back and explain how you know the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity. For someone who refuses to answer any questions, you sure demand answers all the time, normally as a distraction when you are the one making the affirmative argument. [/quote]
28-12-2024 01:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Im a BM wrote: Historic context, if subtlety is insufficient for "magical acid" reference. "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math." - IBdaMann Disclaimer - this reverse buffering effect only applies to a MAGICAL acid. ------------------------------------- In the underlying post by IBdaMann, IBdaMann asserts in his own words (edited with bold/italics to assist in its location) the following: Stop griping. 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 Edited on 28-12-2024 01:19
28-12-2024 10:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14932)	Im a BM wrote: "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" - IBdaMann WRONG! As usual. You are correct. My bad. My recollection needed a kick. The hydronium ion is formed with a spare proton, it is not the spare proton itself. So you must be correct, the ocean is clearly losing its alkalinity.
28-12-2024 19:00
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: "The terms proton and hydronium ion refer to the same thing" - IBdaMann WRONG! As usual. You are correct. My bad. My recollection needed a kick. The hydronium ion is formed with a spare proton, it is not the spare proton itself. So you must be correct, the ocean is clearly losing its alkalinity. says they guy who claims that the ocean is "very alkaline", and that "Life is acidic. If the ocean were to cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life would thrive like never before. Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations in order to survive." - IBdaMann From the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" Thermodenial Manifesto - IBdaMann Not to mention that only a "magical" acid could have pH = 0, for that "more pronounced" impact a drop of acid has on sea water compared to pure water, as IBdaMann describes chemistry in the real world. Yup. The sea is downright CAUSTIC, being so "very alkaline", at pH slightly above circumneutral, about pH 8.3 Special adaptations are required to survive the caustic soda conditions of the sea, such as being able to exclude the excessive carbonate ions from uptake. And if the sea were too just cross the threshold to become acidic, there wouldn't be so many carbonate ions in solution, to require these special adaptations in order to tolerate the "very alkaline" conditions. "Marine life would thrive like never before", if we could just get it to stop being so "very alkaline" and bring the pH down below 7. Given his "debunking" claims, I wouldn't be too surprised if this IBdaMann character doesn't even know what alkalinity is. Back to chemistry in the real world. Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water. Increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water leads to increased concentration of carbonic acid (NOT "carbolic" acid as per "debunking" manifesto). Increased concentration of carbonic acid WOULD cause DECREASE in pH, but.... It's called BUFFERING! Rather than cause hydrogen ion concentration to increase (i.e. pH to decrease), the oxyanion of a WEAK acid gets protonated. However, a carbonate ion gets consumed in the process, transformed to bicarbonate ion. The pH hardly changed, but now there is less carbonate ion in solution. Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. Marine biologists have clearly documented the diminished growth of shellfish larva, corals, and other shell forming critters, and chemists have confirmed that the measurable concentrations of carbonate ion have diminished. So, in order improve things so that "marine life would thrive like never before" we (choose A or A. Bring the pH down to below 7, as IBdaMann suggests would improve things. B. Restore the alkalinity to its previous levels, so there will be enough bioavailable carbonate ions in solution to permit healthy shell development.
29-12-2024 03:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (22820)	Im a BM wrote: Back to chemistry in the real world. You don't know any chemistry, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water. Increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water leads to increased concentration of carbonic acid (NOT "carbolic" acid as per "debunking" manifesto). Carbon dioxide is not carbonic nor carbolic acid. Im a BM wrote: Increased concentration of carbonic acid WOULD cause DECREASE in pH, but.... It's called BUFFERING! Rather than cause hydrogen ion concentration to increase (i.e. pH to decrease), the oxyanion of a WEAK acid gets protonated. However, a carbonate ion gets consumed in the process, transformed to bicarbonate ion. Hydrogen is not an ion. Go learn what pH means. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The pH hardly changed, but now there is less carbonate ion in solution. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Marine biologists have clearly documented the diminished growth of shellfish larva, corals, and other shell forming critters, and chemists have confirmed that the measurable concentrations of carbonate ion have diminished. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: So, in order improve things so that "marine life would thrive like never before" we (choose A or A. Bring the pH down to below 7, as IBdaMann suggests would improve things. B. Restore the alkalinity to its previous levels, so there will be enough bioavailable carbonate ions in solution to permit healthy shell development. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. 'Bioavailable' is a meaningless buzzword. 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
29-12-2024 03:51
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1622)	If they would just stop insisting that carbonate IS a chemical... Makes it necessary to say, over and over, "Carbonate is not a chemical." You would think it only needs to be said once, since it explains EVERYTHING so clearly. All that ANYONE needs to know about sea water pH buffering: 1. Pure water itself is an excellent pH buffer. Don't let any chemistry textbook try to exploit your gullibility and convince you otherwise. 2. Carbonate is not a chemical. Which makes it just a meaningless buzzword. "Go learn what pH means." - Into the Night RQAA. But for those who didn't see it the first 20 or 30 times I posted it: pH = -log[H+] pH is equal to the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, reported as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents ion charge per liter) I keep asking Into the Night to please, JUST ONCE, share his concept of what the term "pH" actually IS, and all he will answer is what pH is NOT. Or at least EXPLICITLY say that pH = -log[H+] is WRONG, as your claims all imply. If pH does NOT equal the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity, then it MIGHT be true that "pH cannot be less than or equal to zero". The ITN Chemistry Clown act is HILARIOUS! Nobody could possibly suspect that he might not REALLY be a "chemist". Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Back to chemistry in the real world. You don't know any chemistry, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water. Increased concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water leads to increased concentration of carbonic acid (NOT "carbolic" acid as per "debunking" manifesto). Carbon dioxide is not carbonic nor carbolic acid. Im a BM wrote: Increased concentration of carbonic acid WOULD cause DECREASE in pH, but.... It's called BUFFERING! Rather than cause hydrogen ion concentration to increase (i.e. pH to decrease), the oxyanion of a WEAK acid gets protonated. However, a carbonate ion gets consumed in the process, transformed to bicarbonate ion. Hydrogen is not an ion. Go learn what pH means. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The pH hardly changed, but now there is less carbonate ion in solution. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Many marine organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Marine biologists have clearly documented the diminished growth of shellfish larva, corals, and other shell forming critters, and chemists have confirmed that the measurable concentrations of carbonate ion have diminished. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: So, in order improve things so that "marine life would thrive like never before" we (choose A or A. Bring the pH down to below 7, as IBdaMann suggests would improve things. B. Restore the alkalinity to its previous levels, so there will be enough bioavailable carbonate ions in solution to permit healthy shell development. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. 'Bioavailable' is a meaningless buzzword. Edited on 29-12-2024 04:44

Page 3 of 3

3

Join the debate How would YOU know? It's a valid question.:

Related content

Threads	Replies	Last post
Can You Answer This Trivia Question?	37	13-01-2025 00:48
Just one simple question	82	04-01-2025 00:50
General Question in General Forum.	168	19-11-2024 01:44
12V DC motor question	24	18-02-2024 23:24
Honest Question for Christians	102	29-12-2022 16:57

▲ Top of page

Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact