Ocean ph.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:For irrefutable proof that IBdaMann is a scientifically-illiterate moron, read his explanation for sea water chemistry!

Were you going to point out an error of some sort? Did you not because you saw that there aren't any? How did you misunderstand my post to somehow be an explanation for sea water chemistry?

Allow me to be the first to teach you that sea water chemistry is just regular chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's pretend that you are actually correct about something.

Im a BM wrote:
Let's pretend that carbonic acid cannot be found more than three meters below the sea water surface. Let's also pretend that dissolved carbon dioxide is also restricted to this uppermost surface water zone.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, how does marine photosynthesis occur any deeper than that?

Im a BM wrote:
Google is smarter than God, so I'll ask her.

Google inquiry: "How deep is the 'photic zone' in the sea where photosynthesis can occur?"

Google say: "The photic zone of the ocean extends from the surface down to a maximum depth of about 200 meters.."

But then Google goes on to say:
"* Euphotic Zone (True Photosynthesis): The upper part where light is strong. It goes down to roughly 80 to 100 meters in clear open water, where plant growth thrives."

Im a BM wrote:
Wait a minute!

If there is no carbonic acid or dissolved carbon dioxide to be found more than three meters below the surface (as IBdaMann and Into the Night insist), what sort of carbon-based substrate is being used for photosynthesis down there?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, I'll spoil it and admit that most marine photosynthesis takes in BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-, rather than CO2 for photosynthesis. Not because there is no dissolved CO2 to be found, but rather because dissolved carbonate ion is so much more abundant and easy to take in.

Into the Night wrote:

olyz wrote:
From googling and some observations.

1) If there is CO2 in the air, ocean must be saturated and any additional won't make any difference. If ocean is saturated, it's ph must be 5.5. It isn't, it's a little above7.

CO2 does dissolve in water (think soda or beer). It also vents from water (think soda going flat).

olyz wrote:
2) Only small portion of dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid.

True. About 1%. Carbonic acid also becomes dissolved CO2. But it also remains near the surface.

olyz wrote:
3) Forget the reef. Carbonic acid reacts with sand which covers ocean floor, ie, a vast CO2 sink.

Actually, it doesn't. Sand is a very large molecule and comes in many forms, all of which have strong bonds. Sand has to be in solution to react with carbonic acid. Silicon dioxide in solution tends to behave like a weak acid, so it won't react with carbonic acid anyway.

olyz wrote:
So it looks like there is a continuous process of CO2 (actually carbonic acid) reacting with the ocean floor and being absorbed from atmosphere.

Nope. Doesn't really do much of anything. All that alkaline water buffers it.

olyz wrote:
4) What is reaction between sand (SiO2) and carbonic acid, ie, what are the products? Harmful? Why can't you find it googling?

Because there isn't any reaction.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night makes many retarded assertions in this post.

ITN claims that dissolved CO2 "remains near the surface".

Im a BM wrote:
BULLSHIT! The concentration of dissolved CO2 in sea water is HIGHER as you go further beneath the surface, about 20% higher near the bottom than the top.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, ITN didn't even understand the question olyz was asking about why the sea does not have pH 5.5

Im a BM wrote:
That is because Into the Night doesn't even know what pH is. LITERALLY!

Im a BM wrote:
He swears that pH cannot be below zero, it cannot be measured in the sea, it is NOT = -log(H+), and it is "buffered" by "water itself".

Im a BM wrote:
But the clearest proof that Into the Night doesn't have a clue what pH is showed up in his post earlier today.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

"Soil has no pH." - Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
Only a scientifically-illiterate moron who doesn't know the definition of pH would claim that "soil has no pH".

olyz wrote:
From googling and some observations.

1) If there is CO2 in the air, ocean must be saturated and any additional won't make any difference. If ocean is saturated, it's ph must be 5.5. It isn't, it's a little above7.

2) Only small portion of dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid.

3) Forget the reef. Carbonic acid reacts with sand which covers ocean floor, ie, a vast CO2 sink.

So it looks like there is a continuous process of CO2 (actually carbonic acid) reacting with the ocean floor and being absorbed from atmosphere.

4) What is reaction between sand (SiO2) and carbonic acid, ie, what are the products? Harmful? Why can't you find it googling?

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who wishes can read the scientifically illiterate trolls answers to olyz's question on the first couple of pages of this thread. They will notice that NONE of the trolls even understood what the question meant. None of the trolls realized that olyz was trying to describe how pH 5.5 is about what is expected from pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night loves to invoke "Henry's law", but he doesn't have a clue how to apply it.

Im a BM wrote:
With Google's assistance, this is a CO2-equilibrium-pH tutorial for:

Im a BM wrote:

Google inquiry: "How does Henry's law apply to calculating pH of pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2?"

Im a BM wrote:
Google's response: "Henry's law sets the initial concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) in water based on its atmospheric partial pressure. This CO2 then reacts with water to form carbonic acid, establishing a series of chemical equilibria that dictate the final acidic pH (about 5.6)"

Im a BM wrote:
Google even shows all the steps for the calculation!
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

"Step 1: Calculating dissolved CO2 via Henry's law"
(Google shows how to use partial pressure and the appropriate constant for the temperature of a given system to get total aqueous CO2 concentration)

"Step 2: Aqueous Equilibria and Proton Generation"

(Google shows how to use the dissociation constants for the different species in the carbonate system to calculate concentrations of carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion, and hydrogen ion (H+) for a given concentration of dissolved CO2)

Im a BM wrote:
"Step 3: Calculating pH"
[/b]
(Google shows you how to calculate pH using the hydrogen ion concentration calculated in step 2)

Im a BM wrote:

It is more than I am willing to copy here, but Google spells out very clearly how to use Henry's law to calculate pH of water in equilibrium with the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
This was the basis for olyz's question.

Somehow, not one of the trolls realized this.

Apparently, they never studied chemistry.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who wishes can read the scientifically illiterate trolls answers to olyz's question on the first couple of pages of this thread. They will notice that NONE of the trolls even understood what the question meant. None of the trolls realized that olyz was trying to describe how pH 5.5 is about what is expected from pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2.

Pure water has a pH of 7, moron.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night loves to invoke "Henry's law", but he doesn't have a clue how to apply it.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
With Google's assistance, this is a CO2-equilibrium-pH tutorial for:

You can't teach what you do not know.

Im a BM wrote:

Google inquiry: "How does Henry's law apply to calculating pH of pure water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2?"

Henry's law does not calculate pH.
Carbon dioxide is not an acid.
Pure water has a pH of 7.

Im a BM wrote:
Google's response: "Henry's law sets the initial concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) in water based on its atmospheric partial pressure. This CO2 then reacts with water to form carbonic acid, establishing a series of chemical equilibria that dictate the final acidic pH (about 5.6)"

Henry's law does not calculate pH.
Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Google even shows all the steps for the calculation!
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

"Step 1: Calculating dissolved CO2 via Henry's law"
(Google shows how to use partial pressure and the appropriate constant for the temperature of a given system to get total aqueous CO2 concentration)

"Step 2: Aqueous Equilibria and Proton Generation"

(Google shows how to use the dissociation constants for the different species in the carbonate system to calculate concentrations of carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion, and hydrogen ion (H+) for a given concentration of dissolved CO2)

Carbonate is not a system.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
(H+) is not a chemical.
CO2 is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
"Step 3: Calculating pH"
[/b]
(Google shows you how to calculate pH using the hydrogen ion concentration calculated in step 2)

You don't have any hydrogen ion concentration calculated in step 2.

Im a BM wrote:

It is more than I am willing to copy here, but Google spells out very clearly how to use Henry's law to calculate pH of water in equilibrium with the atmosphere.

Henry's law does not calculate pH.
Pure water has a pH of 7.

Im a BM wrote:
This was the basis for olyz's question.

Somehow, not one of the trolls realized this.

Apparently, they never studied chemistry.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil has no pH." - Into the Night

As a PhD soil chemist, I have to dispute this assertion.

Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, I am most recognized for my research on extremely acidic soils.

Im a BM wrote:
Every soil I ever investigated had pH.

Im a BM wrote:
There is certainly more than one way to measure it. Just mixing the soil with pure water makes it possible to assess the magnitude of hydrogen ion activity in soil solution.

Im a BM wrote:
Mixing a soil sample with (pH neutral) potassium chloride or calcium chloride solution makes it possible to assess the magnitude of exchangeable hydrogen ion activity in the soil. In most of the acidic forest soils I investigated, the soil pH measured with pH neutral calcium chloride was more than one full pH unit lower than the pH measured with pure water.

Im a BM wrote:
So, yes! Soil does have pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I expect that the best chemistry you can display will be to simply repeat your retarded four-word-sentence assertion, over and over.

Any inquiry into what the pHuck you're claiming about soil having no pH will be met with condescending and LYING claims of "RQAA".

Im a BM wrote:
But it would be a chance for you to FINALLY tell us what you believe, as a "chemist", the definition of "pH" even is.

Im a BM wrote:

And as a PhD soil chemist whose discoveries about nutrient cycling dynamics unique to soils of very low pH are widely cited in the peer-reviewed chemistry literature, I'm dying to know why you believe that "soil has no pH".

Im a BM wrote: BULLSHIT! The concentration of dissolved CO2 in sea water is HIGHER as you go further beneath the surface, about 20% higher near the bottom than the top.

Im a BM wrote: Only a scientifically-illiterate moron who doesn't know the definition of pH would claim that "soil has no pH".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil has no pH." - Into the Night

As a PhD soil chemist, I have to dispute this assertion.

You deny chemistry.
Science is not a title.
Science is not a degree.
You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, I am most recognized for my research on extremely acidic soils.

Science is not a recognition.
Science is not a research.
Soil is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Every soil I ever investigated had pH.

Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
There is certainly more than one way to measure it. Just mixing the soil with pure water makes it possible to assess the magnitude of hydrogen ion activity in soil solution.

Soil is not a solution.
Hydrogen is not an ion.

Im a BM wrote:
Mixing a soil sample with (pH neutral) potassium chloride or calcium chloride solution makes it possible to assess the magnitude of exchangeable hydrogen ion activity in the soil. In most of the acidic forest soils I investigated, the soil pH measured with pH neutral calcium chloride was more than one full pH unit lower than the pH measured with pure water.

Soil has no pH.
Soil is not an acid.

Im a BM wrote:
So, yes! Soil does have pH.

Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, I expect that the best chemistry you can display will be to simply repeat your retarded four-word-sentence assertion, over and over.

Any inquiry into what the pHuck you're claiming about soil having no pH will be met with condescending and LYING claims of "RQAA".

Stop asking the same answered question over and over and over and over mindlessly.

Im a BM wrote:
But it would be a chance for you to FINALLY tell us what you believe, as a "chemist", the definition of "pH" even is.

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:

And as a PhD soil chemist whose discoveries about nutrient cycling dynamics unique to soils of very low pH are widely cited in the peer-reviewed chemistry literature, I'm dying to know why you believe that "soil has no pH".

Soil has no pH.
Science does not use consensus.
Science is not a book.
Science is not a magazine or journal.

Im a BM wrote:
Your dishonest evasion is entirely predictable.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't know enough about soil or pH to offer more than a repetition of the same meaningless four-word sentence, "Soil has no pH".

Im a BM wrote:
How are you going to celebrate when you break the 25,000 post milestone?

At some level you must be conscious of the fact that by relentlessly trolling every post by anyone attempting to discuss science, you played an important role driving everyone away from the discussion.

IBdaMann deserves most of the credit. His trolling took it to uglier places than even you were willing to go. But you were his primary enabler.

Im a BM wrote:
However, you were NOT his favorite disciple.

I suspect that IBdaMann is embarrassed when he sees your posts.

He much preferred to interact with GasGuzzler or Harvey.

He found gfm7175 to be a much more apt pupil than you.

But you guys drove them away as well!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Your dishonest evasion is entirely predictable.

I won't take credit for your actions, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't know enough about soil or pH to offer more than a repetition of the same meaningless four-word sentence, "Soil has no pH".

Inversion fallacy.
Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
How are you going to celebrate when you break the 25,000 post milestone?

At some level you must be conscious of the fact that by relentlessly trolling every post by anyone attempting to discuss science, you played an important role driving everyone away from the discussion.

IBdaMann deserves most of the credit. His trolling took it to uglier places than even you were willing to go. But you were his primary enabler.

I don't enable anyone. Anyone here is free to post or to leave or to simply read posts and not post themselves.

Im a BM wrote:
However, you were NOT his favorite disciple.

I suspect that IBdaMann is embarrassed when he sees your posts.

He much preferred to interact with GasGuzzler or Harvey.

He found gfm7175 to be a much more apt pupil than you.

But you guys drove them away as well!

Science is not a priesthood.
I haven't driven anyone away, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil has no pH." - Into the Night

Google knows way more chemistry than Into the Night. I'll believe Google over a scientifically-illiterate Internet troll any day.

Google inquiry: "Does soil have pH?"

Of course it does, dumbass! (is what Google should say)

But Google doesn't have the same kind of grudge against the chemistry FRAUD that I do, and she is more polite in her response.

Google say: "Yes, soil does have a pH."

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil has no pH." - Into the Night

Google knows way more chemistry than Into the Night. I'll believe Google over a scientifically-illiterate Internet troll any day.

Google inquiry: "Does soil have pH?"

Of course it does, dumbass! (is what Google should say)

But Google doesn't have the same kind of grudge against the chemistry FRAUD that I do, and she is more polite in her response.

Google say: "Yes, soil does have a pH."

Google is not sentient.
Science is not Google.
Science is not AI.
Science is not a search engine.
Science isn't a fraud.
Science is not a religion.
Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
In order to publish my widely-cited 1995 paper in the highly-prestigious scientific journal Nature, I had to create the data tables with the soil pH of five different sites along a soil acidity gradient, I had to actually measure the soil pH, I had to explain how we measured soil pH in the methodology...

Im a BM wrote:
Do you actually take yourself seriously as you repeat "Soil has no pH"?

Yet you have only those four words to make your case. You cannot cite ANY credible source that agrees with your wildly contrarian assertion.

I could remind you of all the credible sources that agree with ME, but you would find every way to belittle and dismiss them. Science is not a textbook.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, most of the soils that I studied most intensively, from the "acid sulfate soils" of the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to the "acid white sand soils" of the pygmy forest on the northern California coast, were ACIDS!

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, they qualify as acids by definition. These soils would definitely donate protons and react with a base to form a salt. Soil with pH 3 is impressively acidic. It can neutralize a lot of base. It walks, quacks, and flies like an acid.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In order to publish my widely-cited 1995 paper in the highly-prestigious scientific journal Nature, I had to create the data tables with the soil pH of five different sites along a soil acidity gradient, I had to actually measure the soil pH, I had to explain how we measured soil pH in the methodology...

Science isn't a paper.
Science isn't a journal.
Nature Journal is a shitrag.
Soil has no pH.
Soil is not an acid.
There is no such thing as 'acid gradient'.
You don't understand pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Do you actually take yourself seriously as you repeat "Soil has no pH"?

Yet you have only those four words to make your case. You cannot cite ANY credible source that agrees with your wildly contrarian assertion.

I could remind you of all the credible sources that agree with ME, but you would find every way to belittle and dismiss them. Science is not a textbook.

Soil has no pH.
Science is not 'credibility'.
You don't get to declare 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Science does not use consensus.
You deny many theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, most of the soils that I studied most intensively, from the "acid sulfate soils" of the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to the "acid white sand soils" of the pygmy forest on the northern California coast, were ACIDS!

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Soil is not an acid.
Soil has no pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, they qualify as acids by definition. These soils would definitely donate protons and react with a base to form a salt. Soil with pH 3 is impressively acidic. It can neutralize a lot of base. It walks, quacks, and flies like an acid.

Soil is not an acid.
Soil has no pH.
Soil is not a proton.
Soil is not an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone following this discussion can see what a contrarian pest you are. They can also see how hollow your entire argument is.

"Soil has no pH", because you say so, and you claim to be a "chemist".

But a "chemist" might have more than four words with which to explain WHY this truly extraordinary claim is to be believed.

Your infallible omniscience is NOT as self evident as you may believe. You can't even cite a DICTIONARY to back up your shit.

"Science is not a dictionary".

And Into the Night is NOT a scientist.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone following this discussion can see what a contrarian pest you are. They can also see how hollow your entire argument is.

"Soil has no pH", because you say so, and you claim to be a "chemist".

But a "chemist" might have more than four words with which to explain WHY this truly extraordinary claim is to be believed.

Your infallible omniscience is NOT as self evident as you may believe. You can't even cite a DICTIONARY to back up your shit.

"Science is not a dictionary".

And Into the Night is NOT a scientist.

Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

One great quote from Google: "Yes, soil does have pH. It measures how acidic or alkaline the soil is.."

But I've got another point to ask for Google's comments about.

Google inquiry: "Upwelling of deep sea carbonic acid"

[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
Google response: "Upwelling of deep-sea carbonic acid occurs when wind-driven coastal currents pull cold, nutrient-rich, and highly acidic deep waters up onto the continental shelf. This deep water accumulates high levels of carbon dioxide from sinking organic matter broken down by microbes, intensifying local ocean acidification and stressing shell-forming marine life."

Im a BM wrote:
The "El Nino" phenomenon was given the name by Peruvian fisherman who found nothing to catch when the upwelling temporarily ceased.

Not ALL shell-forming marine life gets stressed. Only the ones that depend on carbonate ion, CO3(2-) to be available in the water at high enough concentration to make calcium carbonate, CaCO3, shell. Crustaceans are exceptions, as are many calcareous photosynthetic plankton. They take in BICARBONATE ion, HCO3-, which is usually at least ten times as abundant as carbonate ions, CO3(2-), and use it to make CaCO3 shell. Some crabs, shrimp, etc, and some shell-forming plankton THRIVE in the carbonic-acid-rich waters that rise up from the deep via upwelling. Most shell-forming organisms (not crustaceans or plankton) are handicapped under such conditions.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, there is even MORE carbonic acid down deep than there usually is above. Not because CO2 is ventilating off the surface. Because new CO2 is being added to the water down deep, where "sinking organic matter" gets decomposed by aerobic organisms using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea floor is not "barren" on the continental shelf. Photosynthesis at the surface creates organic carbon, much of which rains down to the sea floor before too long. Some of it gets decomposed aerobically to CO2 (and carbonic acid). Some of it piles up in a low oxygen sludge that does not decompose. We use that sludge from ancient shallow sea floors, transformed by geologic metamorphism into petroleum, as "fossil fuel" today.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

One great quote from Google: "Yes, soil does have pH. It measures how acidic or alkaline the soil is.."

But I've got another point to ask for Google's comments about.

Google inquiry: "Upwelling of deep sea carbonic acid"

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Soil has no pH.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
Google response: "Upwelling of deep-sea carbonic acid occurs when wind-driven coastal currents pull cold, nutrient-rich, and highly acidic deep waters up onto the continental shelf. This deep water accumulates high levels of carbon dioxide from sinking organic matter broken down by microbes, intensifying local ocean acidification and stressing shell-forming marine life."

Carbonic acid is not a current.
Carbonic acid is not water temperature.
Acid is not water temperature.
Carbon dioxide is not water temperature.
Carbon dioxide is not organic matter.
You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
The "El Nino" phenomenon was given the name by Peruvian fisherman who found nothing to catch when the upwelling temporarily ceased.

Not ALL shell-forming marine life gets stressed. Only the ones that depend on carbonate ion, CO3(2-) to be available in the water at high enough concentration to make calcium carbonate, CaCO3, shell. Crustaceans are exceptions, as are many calcareous photosynthetic plankton. They take in BICARBONATE ion, HCO3-, which is usually at least ten times as abundant as carbonate ions, CO3(2-), and use it to make CaCO3 shell. Some crabs, shrimp, etc, and some shell-forming plankton THRIVE in the carbonic-acid-rich waters that rise up from the deep via upwelling. Most shell-forming organisms (not crustaceans or plankton) are handicapped under such conditions.

Peruvian fisherman are not catching clams or crabs.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
HCO3- is not a chemical.
Go have a plate of oysters.
Carbon dioxide stays near the surface.
Carbonic acid stays near the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, there is even MORE carbonic acid down deep than there usually is above. Not because CO2 is ventilating off the surface. Because new CO2 is being added to the water down deep, where "sinking organic matter" gets decomposed by aerobic organisms using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

Carbonic acid stays near the surface.
Carbon dioxide stays near the surface.
Carbon dioxide is neither new or old.
Carbon dioxide is not organic matter
There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea floor is not "barren" on the continental shelf. Photosynthesis at the surface creates organic carbon, much of which rains down to the sea floor before too long. Some of it gets decomposed aerobically to CO2 (and carbonic acid). Some of it piles up in a low oxygen sludge that does not decompose. We use that sludge from ancient shallow sea floors, transformed by geologic metamorphism into petroleum, as "fossil fuel" today.

The sea floor is basically barren.
The sea floor is not a continental shelf.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbon does not 'rain down' to the sea floor.
Carbon stays near the surface. It's actually difficult to get it into solution at all.
There is no such thing as 'geologic metamorphism'.
Carbon is not petroleum.
Petroleum is not a fossil.
Fossils aren't used as fuel.
You can get oil anywhere you care to drill for it.
You are ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, at least some of your OBVIOUS IGNORANCE about chemistry can be forgiven because you never actually studied the subject.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
On the other hand, it is pretty pHucking SLEAZY for you to be a FRAUD and pretend to have earned the professional title of "chemist" in any recognized way.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, you don't have a CLUE as to what pH even is.

Im a BM wrote:
You have explicitly insisted that pH is NOT = -log(H+), and CANNOT be <0.

You have vaguely referred to pH as being some kind of "ratio", but that is as close as you ever get to DEFINING YOUR TERMS, dumbass.

Im a BM wrote:
You think that dilution is as good as pH buffering, or at least that's what you claim to think.

Im a BM wrote:
You say, "there is no such thing as the carbonate system" regulating sea water pH, and simply insist that "carbonate is not a chemical" to evade any discussion about the chemical behavior of the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), in sea water pH buffering or marine organism CaCO3 shell formation.

Im a BM wrote:
Your chemistry bluff is pretty hollow.

Doe ANYONE believe that Into the Night is really a "chemist"?

I never imagined he might be, based on the very first post of his that I read.

I really AM a chemist, and all I see is an obnoxious internet troll who lies about having been trained in any way as a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
All I see is a punk-ass-bitch, internet TROLL, who enabled an even UGLIER troll to drive everyone who wanted to have a rational discussion away from the website.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, at least some of your OBVIOUS IGNORANCE about chemistry can be forgiven because you never actually studied the subject.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on me.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
On the other hand, it is pretty pHucking SLEAZY for you to be a FRAUD and pretend to have earned the professional title of "chemist" in any recognized way.

Chemistry is not a title.
Chemistry is not a recognition.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, you don't have a CLUE as to what pH even is.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
You have explicitly insisted that pH is NOT = -log(H+), and CANNOT be <0.

You have vaguely referred to pH as being some kind of "ratio", but that is as close as you ever get to DEFINING YOUR TERMS, dumbass.

I already know you don't know anything about pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:
You think that dilution is as good as pH buffering, or at least that's what you claim to think.

Water is a buffer for all acids.

Im a BM wrote:
You say, "there is no such thing as the carbonate system" regulating sea water pH, and simply insist that "carbonate is not a chemical" to evade any discussion about the chemical behavior of the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), in sea water pH buffering or marine organism CaCO3 shell formation.

Carbonate is not a sysstem.
Nothing regulates pH.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer for all acids.

Im a BM wrote:
Your chemistry bluff is pretty hollow.

Doe ANYONE believe that Into the Night is really a "chemist"?

I never imagined he might be, based on the very first post of his that I read.

I really AM a chemist, and all I see is an obnoxious internet troll who lies about having been trained in any way as a "chemist".

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your illiteracy on anybody else, Robert.
You deny theories of science. You are no chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
All I see is a punk-ass-bitch, internet TROLL, who enabled an even UGLIER troll to drive everyone who wanted to have a rational discussion away from the website.

Put the mirror down.

Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log(H+)

This chemical equation is not controversial. It is in every chemistry textbook.

If an acidic solution has >1.0 moles per liter hydrogen ion activity, pH = <0

This is not controversial. It is basic math.

There is no "debate" among chemists about whether or not it is possible for pH to be lower than zero. It is an established fact.

Anyone who has any legitimate claim to be called a "chemist" knows this.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who is not sure can very easily LOOK IT UP.

In the real world of actual science, these things are published and citable.

For the dabbler who isn't convinced, Google offers straight answers to simple questions such as this.

For example, Google the question: "Can pH be less than zero?"

Google is unambiguous: "Yes, pH can go below zero." (Google, 2026)

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is the most prolific troll at climate-debate.com

It would be a rare exception if ITN does NOT insist on trolling this post.

Perhaps he will repeat his five-word sentence for the 500th time that "pH cannot be below zero". That is as deep as his pH explanations ever go.

Perhaps he will repeat his two-word declaration for the 200th time about the equation presented, pH = -log(H+). "Math error", is what ITN parrots.

Im a BM wrote:
Allegedly, if one goes far back enough in the climate-debate.com archives, somewhere there is a post where Into the Night actually explained these things, offered the CORRECT equation for pH, showed why it was mathematically or chemically impossible for pH to be below zero, or even indicated he had the slightest clue what pH even IS.

Im a BM wrote:
But into the Night will never repeat that definition or explanation for pH AGAIN.

You'll have to go through his 25,000 posts and figure out which one has this important chemistry information that is the basis for his contrarian denials.

Im a BM wrote:
From now on, he is keeping it SECRET. "RQAA" is as close as he'll come to answering any questions about his radically contrarian assertions about pH.
Because Into the Night is a "chemist", and they never reveal their secrets.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log(H+)

This chemical equation is not controversial. It is in every chemistry textbook.

If an acidic solution has >1.0 moles per liter hydrogen ion activity, pH = <0

This is not controversial. It is basic math.

There is no "debate" among chemists about whether or not it is possible for pH to be lower than zero. It is an established fact.

Anyone who has any legitimate claim to be called a "chemist" knows this.

I already know you don't understand pH. You don't have to keep proving it.
pH cannot go below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who is not sure can very easily LOOK IT UP.

In the real world of actual science, these things are published and citable.

For the dabbler who isn't convinced, Google offers straight answers to simple questions such as this.

For example, Google the question: "Can pH be less than zero?"

Google is unambiguous: "Yes, pH can go below zero." (Google, 2026)

You are not Google.
You cannot become Google.
Science isn't a publication.
pH cannot be less than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night is the most prolific troll at climate-debate.com

It would be a rare exception if ITN does NOT insist on trolling this post.

Perhaps he will repeat his five-word sentence for the 500th time that "pH cannot be below zero". That is as deep as his pH explanations ever go.

Perhaps he will repeat his two-word declaration for the 200th time about the equation presented, pH = -log(H+). "Math error", is what ITN parrots.

You cannot blame your trolling on anyone else, Robert.
pH cannot go below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Allegedly, if one goes far back enough in the climate-debate.com archives, somewhere there is a post where Into the Night actually explained these things, offered the CORRECT equation for pH, showed why it was mathematically or chemically impossible for pH to be below zero, or even indicated he had the slightest clue what pH even IS.

RQAA.
You cannot blame your illiteracy on anyone else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
But into the Night will never repeat that definition or explanation for pH AGAIN.

You'll have to go through his 25,000 posts and figure out which one has this important chemistry information that is the basis for his contrarian denials.

RQAA. You really should pay attention, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
From now on, he is keeping it SECRET. "RQAA" is as close as he'll come to answering any questions about his radically contrarian assertions about pH.
Because Into the Night is a "chemist", and they never reveal their secrets.

pH is not a secret, Robert. You just don't understand it.
I have already explained it to you multiple times.
So have others.
RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:"CO3(2-)" is not a chemical." - Into the Night

WRONG ANSWER!

Im a BM wrote:
What is CO3(2-)?

package Chemistry {

block Carbonate {

// Attribute representing the carbonate ion CO₃²⁻

attribute CO3_2_minus: String;
CO3_2_minus = "CO₃²⁻";

}

}

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
CO3(2-) (a.k.a. "the carbonate ion" or "carbonate"): "Chemical" or "Category"?

"CO3(2-)" is not a chemical." - Into the Night

WRONG ANSWER!

What is CO3(2-)?

It is the carbonate ion, a divalent anion which plays a major role in pH buffering.

It is the bioavailable form of inorganic carbon utilized by the majority of marine (CaCO3) shell-forming organisms. Exceptions in include crustaceans and some calcareous plankton, which take up their inorganic carbon for CaCO3 shell as BICARBONATE ion, HCO3-.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Is the carbonate ion a "chemical" or a "category"?

Well, whatever it is, it plays a major role in water chemistry and marine biology.

We can't just ignore it and pretend that it has no significant chemical behavior, even if we stubbornly insists that it doesn't qualify as a "chemical", according to some SECRET definition of what a "chemical" is.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It is utterly meaningless to assert "carbonate is not a chemical" in the context of sea water chemistry. As an "argument" it says absolutely nothing relevant.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Or at least tell us WHY we should believe it even matters, because whether or not you call carbonate a "chemical" has no impact on the equilibrium between carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions. It makes no difference to the pH buffering arising from carbonate ions whether or not they have the label of "chemical".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It is chemically meaningless to write "carbonate is not a chemical" even ONCE in this discussion. Repeating it hundreds of time as the sole chemistry argument displays pathetic ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
CO3(2-) (a.k.a. "the carbonate ion" or "carbonate"): "Chemical" or "Category"?

"CO3(2-)" is not a chemical." - Into the Night

WRONG ANSWER!

What is CO3(2-)?

It is the carbonate ion, a divalent anion which plays a major role in pH buffering.

It is the bioavailable form of inorganic carbon utilized by the majority of marine (CaCO3) shell-forming organisms. Exceptions in include crustaceans and some calcareous plankton, which take up their inorganic carbon for CaCO3 shell as BICARBONATE ion, HCO3-.

CO3(2-) is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
pH is not a buffer.
Bioavailable is not a word.
Carbon is not organic.
Carbon is not a clam.
Carbon is not inorganic.
Carbon is not calcium carbonate.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
HCO3- is not a chemical.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Is the carbonate ion a "chemical" or a "category"?

Well, whatever it is, it plays a major role in water chemistry and marine biology.

We can't just ignore it and pretend that it has no significant chemical behavior, even if we stubbornly insists that it doesn't qualify as a "chemical", according to some SECRET definition of what a "chemical" is.

The definition of a chemical is not a secret.
Water is not chemistry.
Biology is not chemistry.
Marine is not chemistry.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It is utterly meaningless to assert "carbonate is not a chemical" in the context of sea water chemistry. As an "argument" it says absolutely nothing relevant.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Water is not chemistry.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Or at least tell us WHY we should believe it even matters, because whether or not you call carbonate a "chemical" has no impact on the equilibrium between carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions. It makes no difference to the pH buffering arising from carbonate ions whether or not they have the label of "chemical".

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
pH is not a buffer.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It is chemically meaningless to write "carbonate is not a chemical" even ONCE in this discussion. Repeating it hundreds of time as the sole chemistry argument displays pathetic ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else.