Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean > Page 28

Page 28 of 28

17-09-2026 16:07
sealover ★★★★★ (2171)	THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26 and continuing through page 27. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go. So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate". Nah. I've already seen your math errors. You don't need to show them to me again. Perhaps I never explained this before. Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1. Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0. Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH? The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible. "Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in. The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation. But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid. CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" "It is not possible for pH to be below zero" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "There is no coral bleaching" "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development. The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others. I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE ALL COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26, continuing through page 27
17-09-2026 17:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15419)	sealover wrote: Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. Your imaginary worshipers are the target audience for your biogyrocheshire musings. Scientifically illiterate trolls, however, are the target audience of your "library." sealover wrote:Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry ... Then again, you wouldn't know what real world chemistry is. sealover wrote: of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). The carbonate system? You know that you don't know what a "system" is, so why are you asserting that there is somehow a carbonate "system" in the sea? Which sea, by the way? sealover wrote: The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. Nope. You regurgitated this from some AI app. Why did you feel the need to look up such a basic term that you should have already known? sealover wrote: ... The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. Nope. It just stands for "Hydrogen". sealover wrote: The net flux of ACIDITY Acidity is not a flux, much less a "net flux." Acidity is a measured value. Acidity over time is a function. Acidity change over time is the first derivative of that function. You are inadvertently trying to treat acidity as a power value. I say "inadvertently" because I now know that you are simply regurgitating what some AI is telling you to say. sealover wrote: CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. Credit where it's due: you finally posted something appropriate for this forum that is informative and correct. If only this had been the only thing in this post, we would have a contender for "ideal world". sealover wrote: I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" Why would you consider that "heckling"? Carbonate is a category, not a chemical. sealover wrote: "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" This goes back to your ignorance of systems. sealover wrote: "Water itself is a buffer for acid" Dilution meets the definition of buffering. sealover wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline" It's true, alkalines cannot be acidified. sealover wrote: "There is no coral bleaching" Another truism. sealover wrote: "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" The question now is whether you are aware of any criticism that is actually false that you would like to rebut. sealover wrote: More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Exactly. More than 99% of the ocean's alkalinity falls into one of those two categories, yes. sealover wrote: As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid The ocean's carbonate ions are not being depleted, despite what your WACKY religion requires you to believe. Your imposed science denial obligates you to deny the daily vast quantities of carbonate ions replenishing the ocean's supply from global erosion. That is one WACKY religion you have there. Your motto is "So much denial, so little time". It's the fate that befalls all Marxists. I feel sorry for you. Imagine, having to assert that water does not evaporate. What a hoot. sealover wrote: Due to ocean "acidification", Using quotation marks doesn't get you off the hook. You deny chemistry, austensibly in the name of being a thuper-thmart chemitht. sealover wrote:The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Nope. Global erosion is the single greatest source, and it fully replenishes the ocean on a daily basis. The daily refresh. sealover wrote: Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Allow me to rewrite your statement above: Sulfate-reducing bacteria use sulfates as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize organic carbon in low oxygen conditions. sealover wrote: You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. I suppose that there can be such a thing as "biogeochemistry" if you create it, but that will require you to unambiguously define a lot of terms, and we both know that's never going to happen. Which climate are you claiming has changed?
17-09-2026 18:10
Im a BM ★★★★★ (4054)	IBdaMann, your internet trolling will be the ONLY thing you are remembered for, in terms of ever contributing anything that might be construed as "science". And because you did it all anonymously... Well, your family won't have to be ASHAMED of it, at least! But YOU should be. Your only contribution to science is to fervently deny it. That wouldn't be so bad if you didn't do so as an obnoxious prick. IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. Your imaginary worshipers are the target audience for your biogyrocheshire musings. Scientifically illiterate trolls, however, are the target audience of your "library." sealover wrote:Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry ... Then again, you wouldn't know what real world chemistry is. sealover wrote: of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). The carbonate system? You know that you don't know what a "system" is, so why are you asserting that there is somehow a carbonate "system" in the sea? Which sea, by the way? sealover wrote: The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. Nope. You regurgitated this from some AI app. Why did you feel the need to look up such a basic term that you should have already known? sealover wrote: ... The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. Nope. It just stands for "Hydrogen". sealover wrote: The net flux of ACIDITY Acidity is not a flux, much less a "net flux." Acidity is a measured value. Acidity over time is a function. Acidity change over time is the first derivative of that function. You are inadvertently trying to treat acidity as a power value. I say "inadvertently" because I now know that you are simply regurgitating what some AI is telling you to say. sealover wrote: CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. Credit where it's due: you finally posted something appropriate for this forum that is informative and correct. If only this had been the only thing in this post, we would have a contender for "ideal world". sealover wrote: I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" Why would you consider that "heckling"? Carbonate is a category, not a chemical. sealover wrote: "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" This goes back to your ignorance of systems. sealover wrote: "Water itself is a buffer for acid" Dilution meets the definition of buffering. sealover wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline" It's true, alkalines cannot be acidified. sealover wrote: "There is no coral bleaching" Another truism. sealover wrote: "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" The question now is whether you are aware of any criticism that is actually false that you would like to rebut. sealover wrote: More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Exactly. More than 99% of the ocean's alkalinity falls into one of those two categories, yes. sealover wrote: As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid The ocean's carbonate ions are not being depleted, despite what your WACKY religion requires you to believe. Your imposed science denial obligates you to deny the daily vast quantities of carbonate ions replenishing the ocean's supply from global erosion. That is one WACKY religion you have there. Your motto is "So much denial, so little time". It's the fate that befalls all Marxists. I feel sorry for you. Imagine, having to assert that water does not evaporate. What a hoot. sealover wrote: Due to ocean "acidification", Using quotation marks doesn't get you off the hook. You deny chemistry, austensibly in the name of being a thuper-thmart chemitht. sealover wrote:The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Nope. Global erosion is the single greatest source, and it fully replenishes the ocean on a daily basis. The daily refresh. sealover wrote: Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Allow me to rewrite your statement above: Sulfate-reducing bacteria use sulfates as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize organic carbon in low oxygen conditions. sealover wrote: You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. I suppose that there can be such a thing as "biogeochemistry" if you create it, but that will require you to unambiguously define a lot of terms, and we both know that's never going to happen. Which climate are you claiming has changed?
17-09-2026 22:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (24532)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Perhaps I never explained this before. Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. The scientifically illiterate ARE your audience. You deny science. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). Carbonate is not a chemical. Water is a buffer for all acids. You cannot blame your illiteracy on anyone else. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. I already know you have no idea what pH is. (H+) is not a chemical. H3O+) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1. Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0. Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH? The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible. I already know you have no idea what pH is or how to calculate it. You don't have to keep proving it. Nitric acid does not have a pH. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonic acid self destructs. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. Almost all carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater simply stays dissolved in seawater. It also vents to the atmosphere, and seawater evaporation also carries carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The carbonic acid self destructs. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in. Not possible. You are ignoring Henry's Law again. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid. CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate isnot a chemical. CO3(2-)is not a chemical. Carbonic acid self destructs as carbon dioxide vents into the atmosphere. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" "It is not possible for pH to be below zero" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "There is no coral bleaching" "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" You can't blame your illiteracy and trolling on anyone else, Robert. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbonic acid self destructs. Go have a plate of oysters. It helps to sharpen your shucking knife first. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Alkaline is not a chemical. Shellfish farms don't add anything to the water. It is the same water as the rest of the seawater around it. Mussel farmers use racks to make harvesting them easier. Oyster farmers supply brackish water to oysters as they grow best with a slightly reduced salt content in the water. The best oyster beaches have a stream emptying into them. Clams are farmed using a variety of methods, since there are many types of clams with their own favorite habits. Razor clams are simply grown in sandy areas. They prefer wide flat sandy beaches. Butter clams prefer rocky beaches. Like oysters, they prefer slightly brackish water. Blue clams prefer muddy areas. They are usually not farmed because of this. Crabs and lobsters are typically wild-caught, using traps. Crawfish are typically wild-caught like lobsers, but they are also farmed, using underwater fencing. So much for 'lack of shellfish'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a microbe. Sulfate cannot be reduced. Sulfate is not a bacterium. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not inorganic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Phosphate is no ta chemical. Arsenate is not a chemical. Borate is not a chemical. Selenate is not a chemical. Molybdate is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. 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
17-09-2026 22:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (24532)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, your internet trolling will be the ONLY thing you are remembered for, in terms of ever contributing anything that might be construed as "science". And because you did it all anonymously... Well, your family won't have to be ASHAMED of it, at least! But YOU should be. Your only contribution to science is to fervently deny it. That wouldn't be so bad if you didn't do so as an obnoxious prick. You cannot blame your denial of science on IBdaMann or anybody else, Robert. IBdaMann and I have both shown you the theories of science you are discarding. We have both shown you the equations for these theories. You just choose to ignore and deny them. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. 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 17-09-2026 22:52
17-09-2026 23:52
Im a BM ★★★★★ (4054)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, your internet trolling will be the ONLY thing you are remembered for, in terms of ever contributing anything that might be construed as "science". And because you did it all anonymously... Well, your family won't have to be ASHAMED of it, at least! But YOU should be. Your only contribution to science is to fervently deny it. That wouldn't be so bad if you didn't do so as an obnoxious prick. You cannot blame your denial of science on IBdaMann or anybody else, Robert. IBdaMann and I have both shown you the theories of science you are discarding. We have both shown you the equations for these theories. You just choose to ignore and deny them. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Into the Night, you FRADULENTLY claim to be a "chemist". Perhaps that would be forgivable, but then you FALSELY ACCUSE me of NOT being a chemist, a scientist, an expert of any kind... Well, Google knows us BOTH! We can get GOOGLE to give HER opinion regarding which of is "recognized" as being some kind of scientist in the real world. Some quotes from Into the Night: "You are a liar." ''You have never set foot in a lab." "You are not a chemist, a scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." "The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists." "Nature is a 'shit rag'." "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." "I am recognized as a chemist. I know that bugs the hell out of you, Robert.." I am aware that I do not speak for "everyone", but I think I've got a pretty good handle on just how much it "bugs" this "Robert" guy to know how much recognition Into the Night is getting for being a "chemist". "Recognized as a chemist"? I'm not sure how that works in Into the Night's universe, but in mine the highest recognition one can get as a chemist is to have one's chemistry discoveries praised by the world's most highly respected chemists. I've gotten that so many times already, I'm kind of immune to insults from arrogant, obnoxious and REPETITIVE, scientifically-illiterate trolls. I don't think that ITN's own family even "recognizes" him as a "chemist". The extreme chemistry incompetence displayed in ITN's posts suggest to me that at BEST, he once began a college level, introductory chemistry class, but was unable to complete it. More likely, his mistakes indicate that he didn't even get the most basic high school level chemistry training. He, LITERALLY, doesn't even know what terms such a "chemical", "pH", and "buffering" mean. Tries to hide his ignorance with bullshit "RQAA", when he never ONCE answered the question. For example" Into the Night, please tell us what you imagine is the definition of the term "chemical"? You haven't yet. Not ONCE. But at least HALF of your "scientific" argument depends on declarations that "(something) is not a chemical." For example, you make the BIZZARE contrarian assertion that "urea is not a chemical". Either you have no idea what urea is, or you are badly mistaken about what is the definition of the term "chemical". But as long as you continue to keep that definition SECRET, we can only GUESS what criteria you may have applied to determine that urea is NOT a "chemical".
18-09-2026 00:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (24532)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Into the Night, you FRADULENTLY claim to be a "chemist". I am a chemist, Robert. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote erhaps that would be forgivable, but then you FALSELY ACCUSE me of NOT being a chemist, a scientist, an expert of any kind... You deny chemistry. You deny science. I have not seen any expertise from you at all. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:Well, Google knows us BOTH! We can get GOOGLE to give HER opinion regarding which of is "recognized" as being some kind of scientist in the real world. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Google has no gender. Google is not sentient. You deny science. You deny chemistry. You can't blame your illiteracy on anyone else. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Recognized as a chemist"? Google is chemistry. Google is not science. Google is not sentient. Google is not a proof. Google is not a Holy Oracle. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I'm not sure how that works in Into the Night's universe, but in mine the highest recognition one can get as a chemist is to have one's chemistry discoveries praised by the world's most highly respected chemists. Chemistry is not 'discoveries'. Chemistry is not a prestige. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. There is only one Universe. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I've gotten that so many times already, I'm kind of immune to insults from arrogant, obnoxious and REPETITIVE, scientifically-illiterate trolls. You are describing yourself again. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I don't think that ITN's own family even "recognizes" him as a "chemist". You don't get to speak for anyone else, Robert. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The extreme chemistry incompetence displayed in ITN's posts suggest to me that at BEST, he once began a college level, introductory chemistry class, but was unable to complete it. More likely, his mistakes indicate that he didn't even get the most basic high school level chemistry training. He, LITERALLY, doesn't even know what terms such a "chemical", "pH", and "buffering" mean. Chemistry is not a college. Chemistry is not a class. Chemistry is not a high school. You can't blame your illiteracy on anyone else. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Tries to hide his ignorance with bullshit "RQAA", when he never ONCE answered the question. For example" Into the Night, please tell us what you imagine is the definition of the term "chemical"? You haven't yet. Not ONCE. RQAA. I am not hiding anything, Robert. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: But at least HALF of your "scientific" argument depends on declarations that "(something) is not a chemical." For example, you make the BIZZARE contrarian assertion that "urea is not a chemical". Either you have no idea what urea is, or you are badly mistaken about what is the definition of the term "chemical". RQAA Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: But as long as you continue to keep that definition SECRET, we can only GUESS what criteria you may have applied to determine that urea is NOT a "chemical". RQAA. Chemistry is not a secret, Robert. 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 18-09-2026 00:08
18-09-2026 00:20
sealover ★★★★★ (2171)	THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26 and continuing through page 27. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go. So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate". Nah. I've already seen your math errors. You don't need to show them to me again. Perhaps I never explained this before. Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1. Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0. Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH? The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible. "Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in. The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation. But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid. CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" "It is not possible for pH to be below zero" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "There is no coral bleaching" "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development. The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others. I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE ALL COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26, continuing through page 27
18-09-2026 03:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (24532)	sealover wrote: Perhaps I never explained this before. ...deleted spam... Stop spamming. RAAA 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
19-09-2026 18:01
sealover ★★★★★ (2171)	THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26 and continuing through page 27. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I could, again, show you the references and the calculations for hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid in multiple examples. Show you how far below zero pH can go. So, remind me that "sulfuric is not a chemical" "hydrochloric is not a chemical, and "nitric is not a chemical" and you won another round in the "debate". Nah. I've already seen your math errors. You don't need to show them to me again. Perhaps I never explained this before. Scientifically illiterate trolls were NEVER the "target audience" for my biogeochemistry musings. Of course ITN isn't interested in the real world chemistry of what pH is or how it is calculated (let alone the carbonate system of pH buffering in the sea). The term "pH" includes two symbols. The "p" stands for the negative logarithm of whatever number follows. The "H" stands for the molarity (moles per liter) of the hydrogen ion (H+ or H3O+) in solution. The negative logarithm means you put a minus sign on whatever the calculated logarithm is. For example, a 0.1 molar solution of nitric acid has 0.1 moles per liter H+. The logarithm of 0.1 is -1. The NEGATIVE logarithm 0.1 = 1. A solution of 0.1 M nitric acid has pH =1. Now make it a 1.0 molar solution of nitric acid. The logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0. The pH of 1.0 M nitric acid = 0. Okay, it's easy enough to make a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid. What's the pH? The logarithm of 2.0 = 0.301. The negative logarithm = -0.301. Therefore, the pH of a 2.0 M solution of nitric acid = -0.301. YES, it is possible. "Alkalinity" is not a measure of pH. Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity that arises from the conjugate bases of weak acids. In the ocean, that weak acid is carbonic acid, H2CO3. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) The net flux of CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea, although CO2 leaves the sea to the atmosphere, but at a slower rate than it comes in. The net flux of ACIDITY is for "carbonic acid gas" (what they used to call CO2) to enter the sea from the atmosphere. Pure water allowed to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere reaches a pH of about 5.6 due to carbonic acid formation. But the net flux of ALKALINITY is from land to sea. Carbonate ions, CO3(2-) constantly enter the sea. These neutralize carbonic acid. CO3(2-) + H2CO3 = 2 HCO3- the reaction produces two bicarbonate ions. I'm sure that we can count on some heckling from the local chemistry clown troll. "Carbonate is not a chemical!" "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'" "It is not possible for pH to be below zero" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "There is no coral bleaching" "You deny science" "You are not a chemist" More than 99% of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) arises from bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Carbonate ion is far more scarce than bicarbonate ion in sea water. As carbonate ions get depleted by neutralizing carbonic acid, fewer of them are available in solution for organisms to use for calcium carbonate shell formation. Due to ocean "acidification", many shellfish farms now must purchase alkaline material to add to the rookery water. Otherwise, there isn't enough carbonate available for healthy larval shell development. The single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea is the process of microbial sulfate reduction. Sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Aerobic oxidation of organic carbon produces carbon dioxide as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon using an oxyanion such as sulfate for terminal electron acceptor produces CARBONATE ION as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product. Other such oxyanion terminal electron acceptors that bacteria can use to oxidize organic carbon anaerobically (generating alkalinity) include nitrate, phosphate, arsenate, borate, selenate, molybdate, and many others. I'm sure that the temptation to troll will be irresistible. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you were NEVER the target audience for my posts. You don't even believe that there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry, and you are too ignorant to realize that climate CAN and DOES change. THE MOST RELEVANT POSTS OF THIS THREAD ARE ALL COMPILED, beginning three posts down from the TOP OF PAGE 26, continuing through page 27
20-09-2026 00:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (24532)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Perhaps I never explained this before. ...deleted mindless repetition and spamming... Stop spamming. RAAA 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 20-09-2026 00:34

Page 28 of 28

Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones	55	15-09-2026 19:17
Ocean ph.	147	31-08-2026 00:23
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	635	25-08-2026 04:04
Ocean "acidification" once and for all?	32	08-07-2026 17:12
What the pHuck are bupHers, ocean acidipHication, and "pH"?	5	07-05-2026 21:38