| 18-05-2026 18:44 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I've learned so much on this site and again, thanks guys for sharing all your knowledge.
Thanks for being receptive to it!
GasGuzzler wrote:
My kid asked me a question the other day, but not sure I answered correctly.
"Dad, I know you cannot increase temperature without additional energy. How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black. There is no additional energy.
I answered that the additional energy was the amount of energy the black object absorbed, rather than the amount of energy available to both objects.
You answered correctly.
Both objects are absorbing infrared light from the Sun and converting that to thermal energy. The photons are, of course, destroyed.
Emissivity (which is also absorbtivity) is greater for the black object (usually). The reason a white object is white is because it reflects more light (to you). The reason a black object is black is because it reflects less light (to you).
If you know the temperature of a surface, you can calculate what the emissivity is by comparing it to the ideal black body, an ideally perfect absorber (and emitter).
At night, of course, the black object also loses more energy (it is a better emitter too!) so that both objects are the same temperature the next morning.
GasGuzzler wrote:
He said that makes sense. Then he called me a racist.
Odd. I guess he figures that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is somehow 'racist' now?
GasGuzzler wrote:
Did I answer correctly?
Yes.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Or is there a better SIMPLE way to articulate?
I would say you did.
GasGuzzler wrote:
For some reason I'm not sure of myself.
His response has nothing to do with what you said. He is pivoting to racism, which is a fallacy.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Last thing I want to do is send him out into the world fighting battles because of his climate sins and defending himself with misinformation.
Apparently he has already enjoined the various religions of the Democrats. It looks like he WANTS misinformation. Rest assured, it didn't come from you.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks!
Good luck with your kid. These are fundamentalist style religions. It is rather difficult to extricate someone from them. Don't give up hope though! It has been done.
Refer him to this forum. He might learn, just as you did.
Heh! I think you misunderstood. One of his best friends is black. Him, my son, and another are becoming quite the ski bums. They literally spend entire weekends together snowboarding and hurling racist jokes. Anytime I say the word 'black' I'm immediately called out for it. It's all in fun and dimishes all the BS cries of racism in our society today.
On Saturday he sent me a text...
Him-Dad, Grant pushed me off a cliff. I'm OK.
Me-Did you deserve it?
Him-NO! It was racially motivated!
LMAO!!!!
The boy will be just fine. He actively engages in arguments in class. Some teachers encourage it, others try to shut him down after letting another student spew climate change BS. In fact he got sent to the office last week for continuing to talk in one such argument after the teacher said it "was enough". I am proud of him.
Greetings Gas Guzzler!
You started this thread just a couple of months before I began posting at this website, four and a half years ago.
Four and a half years later, I am very curious to know what became of this.
Does your son continue to engage in debate with others who "spew climate change BS"?
Did your son carry these teachings with him to college?
Do you and your son continue to discuss thermodynamics?
Did your son choose a path of activism around these issues?
Is he a chip off the old block somewhere, perhaps on an Internet discussion site, refusing to back down in the face of "climate change BS"?
Did he modify the thermodynamics explanation in any way, or is it the same one offered to you here by IBdaMann, Into the Night, and gfm7175?
I am dying of curiosity to know the status of your relationship with your son and your shared mission to confront those who "spew climate change BS".
Sometimes after kids go off to college, the rebel and reject their parents' value system. Maybe even join some kind of wacky cult. Get hooked on drugs. Discover their true identity as a trans sexual.. Have their first big psychotic break and psychotic episode.. Get a girl pregnant, get married/divorced...
A LOT can happen to a kid in four and a half years.
Hopefully he is your loyal buddy still, and you have taken your discussions of thermodynamics to the next level. |
| 27-06-2026 18:51 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I've learned so much on this site and again, thanks guys for sharing all your knowledge.
Thanks for being receptive to it!
GasGuzzler wrote:
My kid asked me a question the other day, but not sure I answered correctly.
"Dad, I know you cannot increase temperature without additional energy. How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black. There is no additional energy.
I answered that the additional energy was the amount of energy the black object absorbed, rather than the amount of energy available to both objects.
You answered correctly.
Both objects are absorbing infrared light from the Sun and converting that to thermal energy. The photons are, of course, destroyed.
Emissivity (which is also absorbtivity) is greater for the black object (usually). The reason a white object is white is because it reflects more light (to you). The reason a black object is black is because it reflects less light (to you).
If you know the temperature of a surface, you can calculate what the emissivity is by comparing it to the ideal black body, an ideally perfect absorber (and emitter).
At night, of course, the black object also loses more energy (it is a better emitter too!) so that both objects are the same temperature the next morning.
GasGuzzler wrote:
He said that makes sense. Then he called me a racist.
Odd. I guess he figures that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is somehow 'racist' now?
GasGuzzler wrote:
Did I answer correctly?
Yes.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Or is there a better SIMPLE way to articulate?
I would say you did.
GasGuzzler wrote:
For some reason I'm not sure of myself.
His response has nothing to do with what you said. He is pivoting to racism, which is a fallacy.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Last thing I want to do is send him out into the world fighting battles because of his climate sins and defending himself with misinformation.
Apparently he has already enjoined the various religions of the Democrats. It looks like he WANTS misinformation. Rest assured, it didn't come from you.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks!
Good luck with your kid. These are fundamentalist style religions. It is rather difficult to extricate someone from them. Don't give up hope though! It has been done.
Refer him to this forum. He might learn, just as you did.
Heh! I think you misunderstood. One of his best friends is black. Him, my son, and another are becoming quite the ski bums. They literally spend entire weekends together snowboarding and hurling racist jokes. Anytime I say the word 'black' I'm immediately called out for it. It's all in fun and dimishes all the BS cries of racism in our society today.
On Saturday he sent me a text...
Him-Dad, Grant pushed me off a cliff. I'm OK.
Me-Did you deserve it?
Him-NO! It was racially motivated!
LMAO!!!!
The boy will be just fine. He actively engages in arguments in class. Some teachers encourage it, others try to shut him down after letting another student spew climate change BS. In fact he got sent to the office last week for continuing to talk in one such argument after the teacher said it "was enough". I am proud of him.
I wish I hadn't driven GasGuzzler away with my trolling and spamming.
GasGuzzler, if you come back, I promise that I will never, EVER troll or spam ANY of your threads AGAIN.
I know I crossed the line in the past, but it's so LONELY here now without you.
I realize how wrong I was to obnoxiously derail every attempt you made to have a rational discussion about science and climate.
I will just STAY OFF your threads, or any threads started by IBdaMann, Into the Night, gfm7175, or HarveyH55.
My bad past behavior as a troll means I must accept that I relinquish any expectation that you would want to respond to anything I write now.
I understand that I deserve the silent treatment .
And I will just stay the hell off your threads so you can post in peace. |
| 29-06-2026 23:34 |
Sugondeez☆☆☆☆☆
(26) |
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done.
So say we have a thermos with water with a heater inside. Say the thermos has e of 0.8. The heater is 10w and its always on. Now we change its E to be 0.1. Won't the water inside heat up since the thermos will radiate less?
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth's emissivity is not changing.
Sorry, but how do you know that? Have you MEASURED it? Oh wait, you said that nobody can measure it. Huh. So how can you possibly know it's not changing? Are you.. omniscient?
Edited on 29-06-2026 23:51 |
| 29-06-2026 23:57 |
Sugondeez☆☆☆☆☆
(26) |
tmiddles wrote:
Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance.
Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course
So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does.
If you increase E of something, and it's a metal ball heated by the sun (so e=a), it will absorb more energy, but it will also radiate more energy away. So the t should stay around the same. |
| 30-06-2026 01:43 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24412) |
Sugondeez wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done.
So say we have a thermos with water with a heater inside. Say the thermos has e of 0.8. The heater is 10w and its always on. Now we change its E to be 0.1. Won't the water inside heat up since the thermos will radiate less?
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth's emissivity is not changing.
Sorry, but how do you know that? Have you MEASURED it? Oh wait, you said that nobody can measure it. Huh. So how can you possibly know it's not changing? Are you.. omniscient?
Emissivity is not a factor determined by a substance. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You are ignoring conductivity. A thermos heats mostly by conduction. The heating element is also heating by conduction.
A Thermos bottle is also known as a Dewer Flask. It is a bottle in a bottle, with a vacuum between them and silvering for the inner bottle. All of it is to reduce radiant heat.
The Earth is not a Dewer Flask. It radiates light by conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy IAW the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The hotter the Earth, the more it will radiate. You cannot stop it.
Emissivity is not governed by any subtance. There is no 'substance' factor in 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 |
|
| 30-06-2026 01:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24412) |
Sugondeez wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance.
Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course
So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does.
If you increase E of something, and it's a metal ball heated by the sun (so e=a), it will absorb more energy, but it will also radiate more energy away. So the t should stay around the same.
You cannot just 'increase the emissivity' arbitrarily.
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 |
| 01-07-2026 00:21 |
Sugondeez☆☆☆☆☆
(26) |
Into the Night wrote:
Sugondeez wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done.
So say we have a thermos with water with a heater inside. Say the thermos has e of 0.8. The heater is 10w and its always on. Now we change its E to be 0.1. Won't the water inside heat up since the thermos will radiate less?
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth's emissivity is not changing.
Sorry, but how do you know that? Have you MEASURED it? Oh wait, you said that nobody can measure it. Huh. So how can you possibly know it's not changing? Are you.. omniscient?
Emissivity is not a factor determined by a substance. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You are ignoring conductivity. A thermos heats mostly by conduction. The heating element is also heating by conduction.
A Thermos bottle is also known as a Dewer Flask. It is a bottle in a bottle, with a vacuum between them and silvering for the inner bottle. All of it is to reduce radiant heat.
The Earth is not a Dewer Flask. It radiates light by conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy IAW the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The hotter the Earth, the more it will radiate. You cannot stop it.
Emissivity is not governed by any subtance. There is no 'substance' factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Why are you trying to bullshit me? A shiny metal ball has low e, a rusted/painted black metal ball has pretty high e. Conduction has nothing to do with it. I know what a thermos is. It is just a random object I picked, it can be a metal ball, it doesn't matter. Answer the question, if we take 2 identical objects, with the same constant power supplied to them, and the only difference will be their E, will their temps differ?
You never said how you know the earths E is not changing. Waiting for an answer.
"Emissivity is not a factor determined by a substance."
??????
Sorry, what? Different materials have different E values. Are you high? |
| 01-07-2026 00:23 |
Sugondeez☆☆☆☆☆
(26) |
Into the Night wrote:
Sugondeez wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance.
Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course
So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does.
If you increase E of something, and it's a metal ball heated by the sun (so e=a), it will absorb more energy, but it will also radiate more energy away. So the t should stay around the same.
You cannot just 'increase the emissivity' arbitrarily.
What are you talking about, paint it with a black high E paint.. Done. |
| 01-07-2026 04:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24412) |
Sugondeez wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sugondeez wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance.
Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course
So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does.
If you increase E of something, and it's a metal ball heated by the sun (so e=a), it will absorb more energy, but it will also radiate more energy away. So the t should stay around the same.
You cannot just 'increase the emissivity' arbitrarily.
What are you talking about, paint it with a black high E paint.. Done.
Paint is not 'high E' or 'low E'. Paint is simply paint.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no 'materials' factor.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency component.
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 |
| 01-07-2026 08:49 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15371) |
Sugondeez wrote: So say we have a thermos with water with a heater inside.
Did you say "with a heater inside"?
We don't need a thermos. Let's just say there's 10W heater.
sealover wrote: Say the thermos has e of 0.8. The heater is 10w and its always on. Now we change its E to be 0.1. Won't the water inside heat up since the thermos will radiate less?
You butchered the example. There isn't supposed to be a heater.
sealover wrote:IBdaMann wrote: The earth's emissivity is not changing. Sorry, but how do you know that?
That is the assumption until someone demonstrates otherwise.
Have you MEASURED it? |
| 01-07-2026 18:32 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Sugondeez wrote: So say we have a thermos with water with a heater inside.
Did you say "with a heater inside"?
We don't need a thermos. Let's just say there's 10W heater.
sealover wrote: Say the thermos has e of 0.8. The heater is 10w and its always on. Now we change its E to be 0.1. Won't the water inside heat up since the thermos will radiate less?
You butchered the example. There isn't supposed to be a heater.
sealover wrote:IBdaMann wrote: The earth's emissivity is not changing. Sorry, but how do you know that?
That is the assumption until someone demonstrates otherwise.
Have you MEASURED it?
And that "sealover" is such a LIAR, he will DENY HIS OWN POSTS.
Sealover would falsely accuse IBdaMann of being dishonest here.
Sealover would LIE and DENY that he ever weighed in on any "Say the thermos has e of 0.8" stuff.
UNLESS... IBdaMann finally figured out that "Sugondeez" is just one of the many SOCKS that "sealover" uses!
That puts Sugondeez in some fine company in any case.
All ten of sealover's socks pose(d) as members with intelligent things to say.
I hope sealover doesn't forget to bring his "Patricio" sock back again. THAT sock had some VERY interesting things to share. |
| 01-07-2026 21:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24412) |
Im a BM wrote:
And that "sealover" is such a LIAR, he will DENY HIS OWN POSTS.
This statement is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
Sealover would falsely accuse IBdaMann of being dishonest here.
This statement is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
Sealover would LIE and DENY that he ever weighed in on any "Say the thermos has e of 0.8" stuff.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
UNLESS... IBdaMann finally figured out that "Sugondeez" is just one of the many SOCKS that "sealover" uses!
That puts Sugondeez in some fine company in any case.
All ten of sealover's socks pose(d) as members with intelligent things to say.
I hope sealover doesn't forget to bring his "Patricio" sock back again. THAT sock had some VERY interesting things to share.
Don't try to deny your socks, Robert.
People like you seem to need them. It makes you seem more 'accepted' then you really are, I suppose is your reasoning, but it only makes you look more lame.
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 01-07-2026 21:46 |
| 02-07-2026 04:40 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
And that "sealover" is such a LIAR, he will DENY HIS OWN POSTS.
This statement is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
Sealover would falsely accuse IBdaMann of being dishonest here.
This statement is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
Sealover would LIE and DENY that he ever weighed in on any "Say the thermos has e of 0.8" stuff.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
UNLESS... IBdaMann finally figured out that "Sugondeez" is just one of the many SOCKS that "sealover" uses!
That puts Sugondeez in some fine company in any case.
All ten of sealover's socks pose(d) as members with intelligent things to say.
I hope sealover doesn't forget to bring his "Patricio" sock back again. THAT sock had some VERY interesting things to share.
Don't try to deny your socks, Robert.
People like you seem to need them. It makes you seem more 'accepted' then you really are, I suppose is your reasoning, but it only makes you look more lame.
My one and only "sock" has ever been "Im a BM", and "sealover" NEVER pretended NOT to be the sock master. "Im a BM" explained that "sealover" needed a SHIT alter ego, in order to interact with the SHIT trolls. "sealover" really wanted to discuss applied biogeochemistry, not thermodenial.
And "sealover" wanted it to be possible to look up his threads without seeing any troll shit smeared about. "Im a BM" had the monkey skills to toss a turd and hit the trolls right between the eyes. |
| 02-07-2026 04:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24412) |
Im a BM wrote:
My one and only "sock" has ever been "Im a BM", and "sealover" NEVER pretended NOT to be the sock master. "Im a BM" explained that "sealover" needed a SHIT alter ego, in order to interact with the SHIT trolls. "sealover" really wanted to discuss applied biogeochemistry, not thermodenial.
And "sealover" wanted it to be possible to look up his threads without seeing any troll shit smeared about. "Im a BM" had the monkey skills to toss a turd and hit the trolls right between the eyes.
No one is a sock master. Your need to use socks is not mastery. It's weakness.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
There is no such thing as 'thermodenial'.
It is YOU ignoring the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else.
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 |
| 02-07-2026 22:28 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
My one and only "sock" has ever been "Im a BM", and "sealover" NEVER pretended NOT to be the sock master. "Im a BM" explained that "sealover" needed a SHIT alter ego, in order to interact with the SHIT trolls. "sealover" really wanted to discuss applied biogeochemistry, not thermodenial.
And "sealover" wanted it to be possible to look up his threads without seeing any troll shit smeared about. "Im a BM" had the monkey skills to toss a turd and hit the trolls right between the eyes.
No one is a sock master. Your need to use socks is not mastery. It's weakness.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
There is no such thing as 'thermodenial'.
It is YOU ignoring the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else.
Hey, I never denied that there is a CLASS (I wouldn't call it "category") of chemicals known as carbonates. CarbonateS, with an "s" for plural.
Carbonate, singular, refers to a specific chemical ion, CO3(2-).
"Carbonates" are all chemicals that contain the carbonate ion, or could at least produce a carbonate ion under the right conditions of pH.
But your BULLSHIT repetition of "carbonate is not a chemical" is just a MEANINGLESS EVASION.
You are terrified by those things you cannot comprehend.
Water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.
Carbonate IS a buffer for acid.
Carbonate ion, CO3(2-) in sea water may at any moment be in the company of two sodium, Na+ ions. Given their abundance, sodium ions accompany the vast majority of carbonate ions in sea water. But if it happens to be potassium or lithium hanging alongside it, it is STILL the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), or simply "carbonate".
Your STUPID word game of "not a chemical"...
And IBdaMann's STUPID word game of "category" versus "chemical"...
"Your word games won't help you." - Into the Night
You apply your same STUPID argument to "bicarbonate" ("is not a chemical") to play the same STUPID word game.
Well, the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, provides about 90% of the sea's pH buffering capacity.
Something your pathetic little "scientist" mind will never be able to wrap around. |
|
| 02-07-2026 23:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24412) |
Im a BM wrote:
Hey, I never denied that there is a CLASS (I wouldn't call it "category") of chemicals known as carbonates. CarbonateS, with an "s" for plural.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate, singular, refers to a specific chemical ion, CO3(2-).
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonates" are all chemicals that contain the carbonate ion, or could at least produce a carbonate ion under the right conditions of pH.
Carbonates is not a chemical.
pH is not a status.
Im a BM wrote:
But your BULLSHIT repetition of "carbonate is not a chemical" is just a MEANINGLESS EVASION.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You are terrified by those things you cannot comprehend.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.
It certainly is.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate IS a buffer for acid.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion, CO3(2-) in sea water may at any moment be in the company of two sodium, Na+ ions. Given their abundance, sodium ions accompany the vast majority of carbonate ions in sea water. But if it happens to be potassium or lithium hanging alongside it, it is STILL the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), or simply "carbonate".
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Na+ is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Your STUPID word game of "not a chemical"...
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And IBdaMann's STUPID word game of "category" versus "chemical"...
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"Your word games won't help you." - Into the Night
You apply your same STUPID argument to "bicarbonate" ("is not a chemical") to play the same STUPID word game.
Inversion fallacy.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Well, the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, provides about 90% of the sea's pH buffering capacity.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Something your pathetic little "scientist" mind will never be able to wrap around.
Science is sentient.
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 |
| 04-07-2026 00:09 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3882) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Hey, I never denied that there is a CLASS (I wouldn't call it "category") of chemicals known as carbonates. CarbonateS, with an "s" for plural.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate, singular, refers to a specific chemical ion, CO3(2-).
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
"Carbonates" are all chemicals that contain the carbonate ion, or could at least produce a carbonate ion under the right conditions of pH.
Carbonates is not a chemical.
pH is not a status.
Im a BM wrote:
But your BULLSHIT repetition of "carbonate is not a chemical" is just a MEANINGLESS EVASION.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You are terrified by those things you cannot comprehend.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.
It certainly is.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate IS a buffer for acid.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion, CO3(2-) in sea water may at any moment be in the company of two sodium, Na+ ions. Given their abundance, sodium ions accompany the vast majority of carbonate ions in sea water. But if it happens to be potassium or lithium hanging alongside it, it is STILL the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), or simply "carbonate".
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Na+ is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Your STUPID word game of "not a chemical"...
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And IBdaMann's STUPID word game of "category" versus "chemical"...
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"Your word games won't help you." - Into the Night
You apply your same STUPID argument to "bicarbonate" ("is not a chemical") to play the same STUPID word game.
Inversion fallacy.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Well, the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, provides about 90% of the sea's pH buffering capacity.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Something your pathetic little "scientist" mind will never be able to wrap around.
Science is sentient.
"Science is sentient." - Into the Night
I must correct my ERROR. I said that "cations get a free pass", but that was FALSE. "Ammonium is not a chemical", for example, is one of the CATIONS that Into the Night denies chemical status to. But the vast majority of ITN's "not a chemical" grievances are against ANIONS. "fluoride is not a chemical" (phosphate sulfate nitrate bicarbonate, etc. etc.) is "not a chemical".
ITN is very biased against the oxyanions in particular.
NONE of them are allowed to be a "chemical".
In general, ITN gives cations such as sodium or potassium a pass, but he sure as heck isn't going to let the AMMONIUM ION, NH4+, be a "chemical".
At least, not a chemical according to his SECRET definition of "chemical". |