| 26-03-2022 07:00 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
sealover wrote:
CORRECTION: ONE mole per liter ANC, NOT TEN moles per liter ANC.
My dyslexia kicked in and you probably noticed the glaring error in the imaginary pH 5 organic acid buffer solution.
I started with TWO MOLES of "organic acid X" (pKa = 5).
When I brought it to pH 5 with hydroxide, I somehow got TEN MOLES of acid neutralizing capacity from the deprotonated "organic acid Xate".
It is easier to split 2 moles acid and get 1 mole ANC, than it is to split 2 moles acid and get 10 moles ANC.
Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.
That's not chemistry!
It's MAGIC!
No, it's dyslexia.
So what's the equation?
sealover wrote:NONE OF THIS IS CITABLE.
It's all citable. Didn't you read the posted rules to which you agreed in order to use the internet? |
| 26-03-2022 17:08 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.
That's not chemistry!
...deleted excess noise...
You aren't making any calculations. You deny chemistry.
Spamming. Trolling. Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented.
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 |
| RE: Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.27-03-2022 07:30 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.
Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.
Historically, the difficulty of performing carbon and nitrogen analysis limited the quantity of data an investigation could acquire within limitations of budget and manhours.
I was lucky to arrive when big leaps had just been made.
The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption.
It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon.
In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2.
After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC).
Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion.
All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).
The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.
Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples.
The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous.
For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to.
The Kjeldahl digest was HARD! You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours. A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required.
But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did?
Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl!
We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways.
First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium.
Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate.
Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate.
Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;;
This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it.
Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters.
Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data.
Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.
Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data.
Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.
That's not chemistry!
...deleted excess noise...
You aren't making any calculations. You deny chemistry.
Spamming. Trolling. Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented. |
| 27-03-2022 08:04 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
sealover wrote:Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.
I see you have gone back to "ocean acidification."
How can anything be of crucial importance in understanding something that doesn't even warrant a definition?
sealover wrote:The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption.
proxy measures?
sealover wrote:It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon.
Of course it did. And there you had it, proof of Climate Change.
sealover wrote:In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2.
Yesss!
sealover wrote:After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC).
Of course it did.
sealover wrote:Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion. All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).
Well hog-tie me and throw me in the fire. I had no idea.
sealover wrote:The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.
Wait, run that by me again. Are you saying that you somehow added the two parts to get the total? Can you do that?
sealover wrote:Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples.
I thoroughly enjoy the mixing of tenses. You don't do it as well as Pete Rogers but you get the job done.
sealover wrote:The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous.
Did you run the Gamma Spec?
sealover wrote:For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to.
Your layman audience will appreciate the lengths to which you have gone to bring the discussion down to their level.
sealover wrote:The Kjeldahl digest was HARD!
It always is.
sealover wrote: You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours.
I can understand boiling high temperatures for hours and hours, but you're telling me that you had to do it for hours and hours and hours? Wow! How did you keep your wits about you?
sealover wrote: A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required. ... and hours and hours and hours. I'm glad you were out there fighting the good fight.
sealover wrote:But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did? ... or the Gamma Spec?
sealover wrote:Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl!
It is so wonderful of you to bring the discussion down to the level of your layman audience like you're doing.
sealover wrote:We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways. First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium. Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate. Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate. Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa; This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it. Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters.
It is so wonderful of you to bring the discussion down to the level of your layman audience like you're doing.
sealover wrote:Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data.
I bet ... but you perservered, right?
sealover wrote:Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.
All advances in science theories are theoretical.
sealover wrote:Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data.
That's not an advance in science. That's a "best practice." You don't know what science is.
sealover wrote:Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries.
Once you gather data, you can use it to create new science. Science doesn't use supporting data. You don't know what science is.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 27-03-2022 10:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.
Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.
...deleted excess noise...
You can't acidify an alkaline.
Carbon is neither acid nor alkaline.
Nitrogen is neither acid nor alkaline.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate.
Spamming. No argument presented.
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 |
|
| RE: Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) Analysis. Reference.27-03-2022 11:45 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) Analysis. Reference.
1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate nitrogen. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 25:3161-3169.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.
Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.
Historically, the difficulty of performing carbon and nitrogen analysis limited the quantity of data an investigation could acquire within limitations of budget and manhours.
I was lucky to arrive when big leaps had just been made.
The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption.
It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon.
In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2.
After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC).
Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion.
All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).
The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.
Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples.
The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous.
For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to.
The Kjeldahl digest was HARD! You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours. A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required.
But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did?
Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl!
We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways.
First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium.
Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate.
Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate.
Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;;
This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it.
Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters.
Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data.
Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.
Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data.
Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.
That's not chemistry!
...deleted excess noise...
You aren't making any calculations. You deny chemistry.
Spamming. Trolling. Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented. |
| RE: Test Method Development - Argon Plasma Spectroscopy. Organic interference.27-03-2022 12:04 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Test Method Development - Argon Plasma Spectroscopy. Organic Interference.
A government water testing lab hired a contractor to assist with method development for their ICAP, inductively coupled argon plasma spectroscopy.
They couldn't figure out why it supposedly calibrated perfectly, but they just weren't getting the right numbers from certain samples that were also tested by other means.
Well, it turns out that these were samples where the transition metals of interest for ICAP analysis were tightly bound in chelation complexes with organic anions.
They just weren't showing up well with ICAP, but it was known they were there in the sample.
Okay, let's use that persulfate again. This time to burn up the organic carbon in the sample, leaving all transition metals in strictly free, labile form. NOT COMPLEXED BY ORGANIC ANIONS. Not present in organometallic chelation complexes.
For chemically oxidizing organic compounds, nicotinic acid is just about the toughest nut to crack. If your oxidation procedure burns up 100% of the nicotinic acid, there's no other organic compound it cannot oxidize.
Persulfate passed the nicotinic acid burn test.
Preparation of the problem samples with persulfate oxidation revealed ICAP concentrations for transition metals identical to concentrations for those metals in those samples determined by other procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) Analysis. Reference.
1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate nitrogen. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 25:3161-3169.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.
Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.
Historically, the difficulty of performing carbon and nitrogen analysis limited the quantity of data an investigation could acquire within limitations of budget and manhours.
I was lucky to arrive when big leaps had just been made.
The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption.
It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon.
In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2.
After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC).
Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion.
All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).
The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.
Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples.
The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous.
For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to.
The Kjeldahl digest was HARD! You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours. A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required.
But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did?
Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl!
We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways.
First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium.
Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate.
Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate.
Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;;
This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it.
Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters.
Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data.
Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.
Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data.
Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.
That's not chemistry!
...deleted excess noise...
You aren't making any calculations. You deny chemistry.
Spamming. Trolling. Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented. |
| 27-03-2022 12:25 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
There is a good old saying that goes like this {The wise man said it could not be done.The young man said he Knew it.He set of to do what could not be done and could not do it}How much government funding did you clowns spend farting around for no results? |
| 27-03-2022 19:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen (DON) Analysis. Reference.
1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate nitrogen. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 25:3161-3169.
Void argument 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 |
| 27-03-2022 19:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted severely damaged quoting and excess noise...
sealover wrote:
Test Method Development - Argon Plasma Spectroscopy. Organic Interference.
Okay, let's use that persulfate again.
Persulfate passed the nicotinic acid burn test.
Persulfate is not a chemical.
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 |
| RE: Unsupported Contrarian Assertion: "Persulfate is not a chemical." Sigh...27-03-2022 22:29 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Unsupported Contrarian Assertion: "Persulfate is not a chemical." Sigh...
The burden of proof is NOT on me.
Any real chemist can look this one up in seconds.
"Persulfate is not a chemical."
Yes it is.
Apparently, someone believes you know something about what is a chemical?
I'm not so bored I want to play "debate" with someone who makes ABSURD unsupported contrarian assertions.
PERSULFATE IS A CHEMICAL! DUH! "Unambiguous definition" is easy to find.
---------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting and excess noise...
sealover wrote:
Test Method Development - Argon Plasma Spectroscopy. Organic Interference.
Okay, let's use that persulfate again.
Persulfate passed the nicotinic acid burn test.
Persulfate is not a chemical. |
| RE: Is Persulfate a PARA Chemical? Is "Chemical" Just a Buzzword?27-03-2022 22:43 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Is Persulfate a PARA Chemical? Is "Chemical" Just a Buzzword?
I'm trying to wrap my head around "Persulfate is not a chemical."
Does that mean persulfate is a PARA chemical?
Do you have to be in expert in PARAchemistry to understand it?
Does that mean the word "chemical" is just a buzzword?
NOTHING is a "chemical" because chemicals aren't even real?
Anyway, if you want to keep piling on the quotable quotes, feel free.
"Persulfate is not a chemical."
Preserve THAT one for posterity!
------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...deleted severely damaged quoting and excess noise...
sealover wrote:
Test Method Development - Argon Plasma Spectroscopy. Organic Interference.
Okay, let's use that persulfate again.
Persulfate passed the nicotinic acid burn test.
Persulfate is not a chemical. |
| 27-03-2022 22:59 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
sealover wrote:Unsupported Contrarian Assertion:
What is a "contrarian"?
Is that the term for " denier of the faith"? Is that someone who has not proven your affirmative argument false? Is that someone who asks a question or who politely requests you to define a term that you use? |
| 27-03-2022 23:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Unsupported Contrarian Assertion: "Persulfate is not a chemical." Sigh...
The burden of proof is NOT on me.
Any real chemist can look this one up in seconds.
True Scotsman fallacy.
sealover wrote:
"Persulfate is not a chemical."
Yes it is.
No. Persulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Apparently, someone believes you know something about what is a chemical?
Yes. Actual chemicals such as potassium nitrate, ammonium persulfate, sodium nitrate, sulfuric acid, sodium benzoate, sodium chloride, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon, and many other substances.
sealover wrote:
I'm not so bored I want to play "debate" with someone who makes ABSURD unsupported contrarian assertions.
PERSULFATE IS A CHEMICAL! DUH! "Unambiguous definition" is easy to find.
Persulfate is not a chemical.
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 |
| 27-03-2022 23:09 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Is Persulfate a PARA Chemical? Is "Chemical" Just a Buzzword?
I'm trying to wrap my head around "Persulfate is not a chemical."
...deleted remaining excessive rant...
Because you can't get your head wrapped around chemistry.
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 |
|
| RE: Why the alkalinity of PURE WATER (pH 7) is SO EASY TO CALCULATE.28-03-2022 02:11 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Why the alkalinity of PURE WATER (pH 7) is SO EASY TO CALCULATE.
Remember in high school chem class when they taught how at pH 7 in pure water, there was exactly as much OH- as there was H+ ?
Remember how they said pH was the negative logarithm of H+ activity?
Remember how in math they taught how the negative log of 0.0000001 is 7 ?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles H+ per liter?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles OH- per liter?
Remember how in pure water (pH 7), the ONLY source of acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) are the oxyanions OH- ?
Remember how this means you don't have to show any calculations because pH 7 is SYNONYMOUS with 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity?
REMEMBER WHAT ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY IS? What units are used?
NOT pH.
ALKALINITY!
You may get it eventually, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...repairing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Let's try this again.
How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).
sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.
If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.
Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.
Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.
pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...
Still can't get your head wrapped around pH or buffers, can ya?
Still can't get your head wrapped around how to handle quoting in this forum, can ya? |
| RE: Or you could just stop trolling my threads.28-03-2022 04:54 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.
So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.
Do the math.
sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.
That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!
sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.
Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.
Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.
sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.
Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.
sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.
sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.
That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.
sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"? |
| 28-03-2022 07:04 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
seal over wrote:Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
... or you could learn how message boards work.
No thread is personal property. Where did you get the idea that it is? Anyone interested in reading my posts can read my posts. Anyone who wishes to skip over my posts can skip over my posts. What do you not understand? Why do you presume to control human activity to the extent that you dictate what posts are available to be read?
Aaaahh, you are a Marxist, that's why. You feel absolutely powerless now that you have been enslaved in your WACKY cult that you desperately search for some measure of control here on an internet website.
If you haven't figured it out by now, it won't work. You are welcome to post here, but so is everyone else.
Why don't you PM Branner and ask to be given your own sub-board where you can be moderator? You will be able to delete everything you don't want in your little space. It's been done before. Problem solved. You can call it the "Toll Free Zone."
seal over wrote: I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
What part of "You haven't fooled anybody" don't you quite fully grasp?
You have made it clear from virtually your first post that you refuse to engage in honest discussion with anyone. Unbeknownst to you, you are by no means the first, and with all of the experience we have on this site, we recognized you immediately for what you are.
There is no such thing as a "biochemgeometrist." You have no audience. You copy-paste error-filled crap that you have to correct. You claim omniscience about the past. You get basic science wrong. You show disrespect to the other members of this board. You won't define the terms you use. You won't answer polite questions of clarification. You cry like a baby. You seek to silence the voices of others. You lie in virtually every post. You laughingly claim that your incoherent gibber-babble is intended to bring the discussion down to the level of laymen.
... but all of the above is meant in only the nicest sense.
seal over wrote:You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
... because there is no audience of which to be a part.
... and you have no intention of discussing anything with the audience that is already here.
Let me know when something changes.
seal over wrote:You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
How do you know I do not care about Climate Change?
ANSWER: You don't. It might very well be the most important thing in my life.
Let's find out. Define Climate Change for me ... you know ... unambiguously. Once you do, I'll get back to you with any question I may have.
seal over wrote:I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
It really depends on the timing and on the content of your posts. Yes, some of your posts get me geared and primed for insults galore because you BEG for it ... and you make it so easy. You are a liar. You are a moron. You form a target-rich environment.
... and you seem to want it this way. You appear to enjoy it. You refuse to have any other sort of discussion with me so, hey, message received!
All I can say is that I'm having a great time and I'm happy if you're happy.
Have a great day.
seal over wrote:I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Of course I do. You haven't the vaguest clue what any of your crap means either. You just know that this is what you have been ordered to regurgitate. As such, I get a target-rich environment out of the deal. Your slavemasters ream you from behind and I bitch-slap you from the front.
You are a welcome guest. Can I get you something to drink?
seal over wrote:I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
... because you aren't aware of any.
seal over wrote:I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I've been following along and only you have said anything worthy of ridicule. Get ready, here it comes ... [BITCH-SLAP]
Too funny! Hey, while you're bent over, run the Gamma-Spec.
seal over wrote:I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
I did? It looks like you have yet another correction to make.
seal over wrote:What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
I'm so glad you reminded me of the equations that you were going to post, ... you know, the equations that any chemist would be able to rattle off in under 60 seconds and would have already posted by now.
Would you post them, please? As soon as you do, I'll gen-up the code.
seal over wrote:Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
Why should I do that when I can just have our resident Geochemistribologist bitch do it for me?
Hey, seal over, post the pKa for silicic acid.
seal over wrote:See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
I'm so glad you reminded me of the equations that you were going to post, ... you know, the equations that any chemist would be able to rattle off in under 60 seconds and would have already posted by now.
Would you post them, please? As soon as you do, I'll gen-up the code.
Oh, and I don't know what silicic acid you're talking about but silicic acid has a higher pH than 5.
seal over wrote:That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
Well, as long as you are doing the math, make it pH of 6.83
seal over wrote:No, this one is for the people who understand science
Nope. It's intended specifically for the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.
seal over wrote: and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
You're a Marxist. You HATE humanity. You consider humanity as evil and as destroying the planet. You would kill all life on the planet in the name of "saving the planet."
Too funny.
seal over wrote:Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
... or you could stop trolling this board.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 28-03-2022 19:42 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...repairing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Let's try this again.
How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).
sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.
If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.
Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.
Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.
pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...
Still can't get your head wrapped around pH or buffers, can ya?
Still can't get your head wrapped around how to handle quoting in this forum, can ya?
Why the alkalinity of PURE WATER (pH 7) is SO EASY TO CALCULATE.
Remember in high school chem class when they taught how at pH 7 in pure water, there was exactly as much OH- as there was H+ ?
Remember how they said pH was the negative logarithm of H+ activity?
Remember how in math they taught how the negative log of 0.0000001 is 7 ?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles H+ per liter?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles OH- per liter?
Remember how in pure water (pH 7), the ONLY source of acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) are the oxyanions OH- ?
Remember how this means you don't have to show any calculations because pH 7 is SYNONYMOUS with 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity?
REMEMBER WHAT ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY IS? What units are used?
NOT pH.
ALKALINITY!
You may get it eventually, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
You keep making this mistake. You are not showing any calculation, and you don't understand the pH scale.
Your attempts to seem smart using buzzwords is failing miserably.
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 |
| RE: Anyone who passed high school chemistry...28-03-2022 20:21 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Anyone who passed high school chemistry...
Okay, anyone who passed high school math learned how to do "word problems",
The idea is that if you understand the math, they don't have to spell out the calculations for you.
What part about pH 7 = 0.0000001 moles H+ OR OH- per liter do you still not understand?
Whose ignorance are you exposing?
You STILL have no idea WHAT UNITS are used for alkalinity.
But you sure showed EVERYONE how little I understand chemistry. Touche!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...repairing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Let's try this again.
How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).
sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.
If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.
Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.
Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.
pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...
Still can't get your head wrapped around pH or buffers, can ya?
Still can't get your head wrapped around how to handle quoting in this forum, can ya?
Why the alkalinity of PURE WATER (pH 7) is SO EASY TO CALCULATE.
Remember in high school chem class when they taught how at pH 7 in pure water, there was exactly as much OH- as there was H+ ?
Remember how they said pH was the negative logarithm of H+ activity?
Remember how in math they taught how the negative log of 0.0000001 is 7 ?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles H+ per liter?
Remember how this would mean pH 7 is 0.0000001 moles OH- per liter?
Remember how in pure water (pH 7), the ONLY source of acid neutralizing capacity (aka alkalinity) are the oxyanions OH- ?
Remember how this means you don't have to show any calculations because pH 7 is SYNONYMOUS with 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity?
REMEMBER WHAT ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY IS? What units are used?
NOT pH.
ALKALINITY!
You may get it eventually, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
You keep making this mistake. You are not showing any calculation, and you don't understand the pH scale.
Your attempts to seem smart using buzzwords is failing miserably. |
| 28-03-2022 21:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.
So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.
Do the math.
sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.
That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!
sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.
Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.
Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.
sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.
Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.
sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.
sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.
That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.
sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy.
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 |
| 28-03-2022 21:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...fixing severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You keep making this mistake. You are not showing any calculation, and you don't understand the pH scale.
Your attempts to seem smart using buzzwords is failing miserably.
Anyone who passed high school chemistry...
Okay, anyone who passed high school math learned how to do "word problems",
The idea is that if you understand the math, they don't have to spell out the calculations for you.
Word problems in math classes have all the definitions spelled out. There is only one calculation for the problem, and you are expected to show that calculation and solve it.
I guess you must've flunked your math classes. How you figured that you could avoid solving math problems in math classes is beyond me.
Then again, maybe they gave a Participation Award instead. You do live in the SDTC after all.
sealover wrote:
What part about pH 7 = 0.0000001 moles H+ OR OH- per liter do you still not understand?
Whose ignorance are you exposing?
You STILL have no idea WHAT UNITS are used for alkalinity.
Buzzword fallacy. No calculation provided. Again, you are showing you have no idea what pH means or how the scale works.
All to try to show 'ocean acidification' which is not possible.
sealover wrote:
But you sure showed EVERYONE how little I understand chemistry. Touche!
As far as people here, correct. So has IBdaMann. So has gfm.
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 |
| RE: Too long a post to bother reading.28-03-2022 21:39 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Too long a post to bother reading.
I see the Parrot Boy picture and then I see way too many words to even bother starting to read.
Whatever were the most important sentences, put them in a short post if you want me to even CONSIDER reading it.
Your writing isn't good enough, your jokes aren't funny enough, your science isn't, it just isn't... So there is NO WAY I will even BEGIN to read one of your posts if it exceeds more than a short paragraph.
I'm willing to live with the loss if I missed something of value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.
So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.
Do the math.
sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.
That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!
sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.
Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.
Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.
sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.
Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.
sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.
sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.
That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.
sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy. |
| RE: Too long a post to bother reading.28-03-2022 21:39 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
Too long a post to bother reading.
I see the Parrot Boy picture and then I see way too many words to even bother starting to read.
Whatever were the most important sentences, put them in a short post if you want me to even CONSIDER reading it.
Your writing isn't good enough, your jokes aren't funny enough, your science isn't, it just isn't... So there is NO WAY I will even BEGIN to read one of your posts if it exceeds more than a short paragraph.
I'm willing to live with the loss if I missed something of value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.
So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.
Do the math.
sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.
That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!
sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.
Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.
Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.
sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.
Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.
sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.
sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.
That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.
sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy. |
| RE: "You are a liar"06-04-2022 20:18 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
"You are a liar"
It is possible that someone other than the two "resident experts in science"
are convinced that "sealover" is NOT an actual scientist.
Maybe three, even four trolls on board to validate your "expertise".
By now, it should be easy to see who the "liar" is.
When I have some time I'm going to try to find your ugliest posts of the last four weeks, where you implied personal threats as well as vicious personal insults, for the audience to evaluate.
You have certainly established your irrefutable credibility as a scientist.
Plus, you seem like a really nice person to interact with on a personal level.
Apparently, you are unaware how bad it looks to the 99% who are NOT.. what you are.
Once in a while I still read your posts, but you kind of ran out of new material.
So, just keep calling me a "liar".
That proves your honesty.
Keep making contrarian assertions.
That proves your scientific genius for ALL to see.
But there are hundreds of posts to go through to find the ones where you make actual THREATS in addition to never ending insults.
I don't have time to do that today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.
You are a liar.
You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.
sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.
Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.
sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.
sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.
Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"
sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.
You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.
Forget about posting gibberish papers.
Just explain your point in your own words. |
| RE: "You can't acidify an alkaline" WTF?16-04-2022 23:36 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
"You can't acidify an alkaline" WTF?
The word ALKALINE has an accepted unambiguous definition.
The word ALKALINE is an ADJECTIVE.
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT ACIDIFY AN ADJECTIVE. DUH!
The adjective "alkaline" refers only to pH above 7.
The word ALKALINITY is a noun.
Yes, you CAN acidify alkalinity. You can measure it in moles like everyone does.
Alkalinity is a noun that describes a quantity of acid neutralizing capacity.
Pure water at pH 7 has exactly 0.0000001 moles per liter H+, 0.0000001 moles per liter OH-, and therefore 0.0000001 moles per liter ALKALINITY. DUH!
If you didn't want to report this alkalinity as moles per liter, you can convert it to calcium carbonate equivalents.
Pure water at pH 7 has no oxyanions other than OH- to provide alkalinity.
Pure water at pH 7 is not "alkaline" at all, but it has alkalinity.
Sea water has orders of magnitude more alkalinity than pH 7 pure water.
That is why the pH shifts so little as carbonic acid is neutralized.
It is called the "carbonate buffer system".
And word games about "an alkalinity" are kind of stupid.
And we can rely on local geniuses to definitely declare "No it's not!"
Because their authoritative word, alone, is SO CREDIBLE, that it outweighs every textbook ever published.
Because credentials, obviously, mean NOTHING here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.
In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.
Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.
You can't acidify an alkaline.
The pH of the oceans is unknown. It is not uniform everywhere.
You don't have to increase anything. Rain naturally falls as acid, but runoff water (everywhere) becomes alkaline. The rivers are alkaline by the time they reach the sea. |
| 17-04-2022 00:14 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
squeal over wrote:It is possible that someone other than the two "resident experts in science" are convinced that "sealover" is NOT an actual scientist.
Wrong word. The correct word is "certain", e.g. "It is certain that at least three people are convinced squeal over is desperate to role-play a smart person."
squeal over wrote:Maybe three, even four trolls on board to validate your "expertise".
It's comforting to know that you are mature enough to think of those who are aware of your cognitive shortcomings as "trolls." After all, your failure is obviously their fault.
squeal over wrote:By now, it should be easy to see who the "liar" is.
It hasn't gotten any more difficult.
squeal over wrote:When I have some time I'm going to try to find your ugliest posts of the last four weeks, where you implied personal threats as well as vicious personal insults, for the audience to evaluate.
... because that will certainly demonstrate your science acumen beyond any question.
squeal over wrote:You have certainly established your irrefutable credibility as a scientist.
I have not mentioned any credentials, I don't tell anyone what to believe and I'm not selling anything.
squeal over wrote:Plus, you seem like a really nice person to interact with on a personal level.
As long as you don't have to look directly at me or listen to me explain how to properly design data structures, I typically don't cause people to flee.
squeal over wrote:Apparently, you are unaware how bad it looks to the 99% who are NOT.. what you are.
I'm certain the 99% aren't sure at what they are even looking. After all, nobody has ever encountered one of me before.
... but I get your point. It's fortunate for humanity that there aren't more of me out there. Can you imagine, several IBDaManns running around? Gawsch, that would zuck!
squeal over wrote:Once in a while I still read your posts, but you kind of ran out of new material.
OK, I'm going to level with you. I know that you read every word of every one of my posts. You gave yourself away, but it's OK. I realize you need to play "coy" and pretend that you are "ignoring me" ... and I'll play along. I'll pretend that you don't know everything that I have written.
So why did you lie about having a "library" when you knew that the day would eventually come when your bluff would be called? The moment you noted that the members of this forum check/verify/validate the veracity of virtually everything, you should have put the nix on that angle. Besides, it isn't even necessary to your role-playing. You can accomplish all the same without the pretense.
I just never understood that.
squeal over wrote:So, just keep calling me a "liar".
Well, I don't want to ... but if you're going to make me, well, OK.
Liar.
squeal over wrote:But there are hundreds of posts to go through to find the ones where you make actual THREATS in addition to never ending insults.
Can you give me an example?
squeal over wrote:I don't have time to do that today.
Of course not.
. |
| 17-04-2022 07:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
Im a BM wrote:
"You can't acidify an alkaline" WTF?
Nope. You can't. Of course, I've already told you this.
Im a BM wrote:
The word ALKALINE has an accepted unambiguous definition.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
The word ALKALINE is an ADJECTIVE.
No. It's a noun.
Im a BM wrote:
OF COURSE YOU CANNOT ACIDIFY AN ADJECTIVE. DUH!
Semantics fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The adjective "alkaline" refers only to pH above 7.
Nope. That is just pH.
Im a BM wrote:
The word ALKALINITY is a noun.
Not a word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, you CAN acidify alkalinity. You can measure it in moles like everyone does.
Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity is a noun that describes a quantity of acid neutralizing capacity.
Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure water at pH 7 has exactly 0.0000001 moles per liter H+, 0.0000001 moles per liter OH-, and therefore 0.0000001 moles per liter ALKALINITY. DUH!
Pure water is not an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
If you didn't want to report this alkalinity as moles per liter, you can convert it to calcium carbonate equivalents.
Pure water has no calcium carbonate.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure water at pH 7 has no oxyanions other than OH- to provide alkalinity.
Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure water at pH 7 is not "alkaline" at all, but it has alkalinity.
Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Sea water has orders of magnitude more alkalinity than pH 7 pure water.
Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
That is why the pH shifts so little as carbonic acid is neutralized.
It isn't.
Im a BM wrote:
It is called the "carbonate buffer system".
You still haven't figured out what a buffer is.
Im a BM wrote:
And word games about "an alkalinity" are kind of stupid.
Then stop playing them. Semantics fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And we can rely on local geniuses to definitely declare "No it's not!"
Nonsense statement. Ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
Because their authoritative word, alone, is SO CREDIBLE, that it outweighs every textbook ever published.
You don't get to speak for every textbook ever published. Science is not a textbook either.
Im a BM wrote:
Because credentials, obviously, mean NOTHING here.
Not even your claim of credentials, which itself is a lie.
You are a nothing.
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 |
| RE: The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle22-04-2022 21:52 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle.
The oxidation of pyrite and the reduction of sulfate are major players in the earth's generation of acidity or alkalinity.
Pyrite forms under chemically reducing conditions.
It can be abiotic pyrite formation during geologic metamorphosis.
It can be biotic pyrite formation as sulfate reducing bacteria use organic carbon as an energy source and sulfate as an oxidant to get that energy.
In the presence of oxygen, chemically oxidizing conditions, sulfur oxidizing bacteria can get their energy by oxidizing sulfide to sulfuric acid.
Sulfuric acid. H2SO4. Hydrogen sulfate. A diprotic mineral acid. A source of sulfate divalent oxyanion.
Two examples of localized oxidation or reduction of sulfur, and resulting localized generation of acidity or alkalinity.
A mine has been dug into the chemically reduced conditions where pyrite exists.
The mine allowed oxygen to enter and oxidize pyrite to sulfuric acid, with the help of some bacteria. Acidity generated.
The mine drainage was directed into a constructed wetland.
The chemically reducing conditions of the waterlogged wetland sediments, in the presence of available organic carbon as an energy source, facilitate pyrite formation.
The sulfate from the sulfuric acid in the mine effluent is reduced back to sulfide in pyrite. "Pyrite burial" is one term often used.
The alkalinity generated during pyrite burial is equal to the acidity generated during oxidation of that same amount of pyrite.
In natural wetlands this happens too, but without upstream input of strongly acidic sulfuric acid. Sulfate is present in many natural water sources, especially in sea water. So instead of simply neutralizing the sulfuric acid with an equal amount of alkalinity, sulfate reduction in natural wetlands produces excess alkalinity.
Which is good for the ocean.
Because the hydrology underlying wetlands causes submarine groundwater discharge of that alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle. Gotta love it! |
| 22-04-2022 23:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
You've already posted this. I have already answered it. Argument by repetition fallacy. |
|
| 22-04-2022 23:09 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5196) |
24k Fool's Gold...
sealover wrote:
The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle.
The oxidation of pyrite and the reduction of sulfate are major players in the earth's generation of acidity or alkalinity.
Pyrite forms under chemically reducing conditions.
It can be abiotic pyrite formation during geologic metamorphosis.
It can be biotic pyrite formation as sulfate reducing bacteria use organic carbon as an energy source and sulfate as an oxidant to get that energy.
In the presence of oxygen, chemically oxidizing conditions, sulfur oxidizing bacteria can get their energy by oxidizing sulfide to sulfuric acid.
Sulfuric acid. H2SO4. Hydrogen sulfate. A diprotic mineral acid. A source of sulfate divalent oxyanion.
Two examples of localized oxidation or reduction of sulfur, and resulting localized generation of acidity or alkalinity.
A mine has been dug into the chemically reduced conditions where pyrite exists.
The mine allowed oxygen to enter and oxidize pyrite to sulfuric acid, with the help of some bacteria. Acidity generated.
The mine drainage was directed into a constructed wetland.
The chemically reducing conditions of the waterlogged wetland sediments, in the presence of available organic carbon as an energy source, facilitate pyrite formation.
The sulfate from the sulfuric acid in the mine effluent is reduced back to sulfide in pyrite. "Pyrite burial" is one term often used.
The alkalinity generated during pyrite burial is equal to the acidity generated during oxidation of that same amount of pyrite.
In natural wetlands this happens too, but without upstream input of strongly acidic sulfuric acid. Sulfate is present in many natural water sources, especially in sea water. So instead of simply neutralizing the sulfuric acid with an equal amount of alkalinity, sulfate reduction in natural wetlands produces excess alkalinity.
Which is good for the ocean.
Because the hydrology underlying wetlands causes submarine groundwater discharge of that alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle. Gotta love it! |
| RE: MAY DAY! MAY DAY! We're going down...01-05-2022 00:46 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
MAY DAY! MAY DAY! We're going down...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.
You are a liar.
You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.
sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.
Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.
sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.
sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.
Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"
sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.
You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.
Ocean Acidification Debunked
Into the Night's comments
Coral Bleaching Debunked
Forget about posting gibberish papers.
Just explain your point in your own words. |
| RE: First Alkalinity Thread, March 9, 202207-05-2022 04:11 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
First Alkalinity Thread, March 9, 2022
Below this was the first post of the first alkalinity thread on this website.
By going back to the first post, new visitors can review the background.
Unfortunately, if you go the other way around, seeing only the most RECENT post of a thread... It has usually deviated into something unrelated, if not patently absurd.
Going back to the start to read this thread from the beginning is the most revealing way to follow it.
Also note the reflexive naysayer response, to put it politely, from virtually the first post. To put it less politely, plug your nose and read them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.
In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.
Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one. |
| 07-05-2022 04:38 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
To any newcomers, pay special attention to squeal over. He doesn't know anything ... however, if you do happen to fall for his crap, please let me know. I'm keeping track. So far the grand total is ... zero, but I suppose that could change. You never know if any really stupid people might arrive who have just emerged from a coma from birth. You never know.
By going back to the first posts, new visitors can review the background.
Unfortunately, if you go the other way around, seeing only the most RECENT posts of a thread... squeal over has usually pivoted in the double-digits, deviating into something unrelated, and always patently absurd.
Going back to the start to read this thread from the beginning is the most revealing way to follow it.
Also note how squeal over refuses to ever define the terms he uses in his arguments. He just won't do it. Ever. To put it less politely, plug your nose and read his posts. Yes, there are preachers out there like him.
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
sealover, the ocean has never acidified.
You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.
Ocean Acidification Debunked
Into the Night's comments
Coral Bleaching Debunked
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file
I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.
Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.
A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.
sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms? |
| RE: "You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."08-05-2022 01:19 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."
"You are a liar."
Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of a desperate debater who has no facts to support their assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Technically, this is libel.
"You are a liar."
"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious"
I guess it takes one to know one in this chemistry expertise thing.
The only reason this isn't libel, is because defaming "sealover" doesn't matter to anyone.
It doesn't matter to anyone besides the trolls, that is.
The real individual behind the "sealover" persona remains just as highly respected now as before.
No harm done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 7, 2022 update
Having advanced degrees from highly prestigious universities is proof of "how much science you were obligated to ignore."
Having widely cited publications in prestigious scientific journals is, apparently, proof of scientific illiteracy and affiliation with "ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters."
And further proof that one obviously does NOT have a degree in chemistry.
A scientific genius can spot a Commie science imposter a mile away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote]IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.
You are a liar.
You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.
sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.
Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.
sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.
sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.
Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"
sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.
You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.
Forget about posting gibberish papers.
Just explain your point in your own words. [/quote] |
| 08-05-2022 02:38 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14389) |
sealover wrote:Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of a desperate debater who has no facts to support their assertions.
... but ad hominem attacks are the immediate go-to attacks of IBDaMann when he sniffs out a lying scientifically illiterate moron who won't even extend the courtesy of defining his own gibber-babble.
You are just such a lying, scientifically illiterate moron who won't be fooling me anytime soon.
Talk to me about how you used the beta scintillation counter to save the world? Did you use it to testify in open court? Did you administer Climate Justice?
sealover quoted IBDaMann:
"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."
"You are a liar."
Yes.
Attached image:
 |
| RE: May 9 - Two month anniversary for first impression.09-05-2022 21:30 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
May 9 - Two month anniversary for first impression.
March 9, 2022, is when sealover made a first impression at this website.
Others made an indelible first impression as well on that date.
The post below is from March 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.
You are a liar.
You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.
sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.
Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.
sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.
sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.
Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"
sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.
You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.
Ocean Acidification Debunked
Into the Night's comments
Coral Bleaching Debunked
Forget about posting gibberish papers.
Just explain your point in your own words. |
| RE: See sealover on TV! Stars in two documentaries.09-05-2022 23:17 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1239) |
See sealover on TV! Stars in two documentaries.
CBS 48 Hours: "Portrait of a Killer" episode.
Sealover can be seen crying like a baby.
Investigation Discovery: "True Conviction" series "A True Psychopath" episode.
Makes sense who was the prime suspect in a notorious, grotesque double murder that made national headlines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Too long a post to bother reading.
I see the Parrot Boy picture and then I see way too many words to even bother starting to read.
Whatever were the most important sentences, put them in a short post if you want me to even CONSIDER reading it.
Your writing isn't good enough, your jokes aren't funny enough, your science isn't, it just isn't... So there is NO WAY I will even BEGIN to read one of your posts if it exceeds more than a short paragraph.
I'm willing to live with the loss if I missed something of value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.
So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.
Do the math.
sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.
That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!
sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.
Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.
Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.
sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.
Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.
sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.
Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.
sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.
That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.
sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.
The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy. |
| RE: May 9 - Celebrate victory over the Nazis10-05-2022 23:54 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.
In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.
Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.
May 9, 1945, marked the defeat of what was perhaps the most evil force ever to achieve power in human history.
Fortunately for humanity, May 9, 2022 was not a day that Putin chose to declare victory over Ukrainian "Nazis" with an all out blitz.
So, climate change and ocean "acidification" are just two of the threats facing humanity today.
The forces of evil are still with us, derailing every attempt to make the world a better place.
As sealover's alter ego, we're trying to help with some accurate science and viable technology.
Let's debate about the best approach to solve the problems.
Ignore the trolls who cannot comprehend that the problems are self evident. |
| 11-05-2022 01:42 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
I am not seeing the problems you are.I have no faith in the media.Yesterday I read an article in the paper that started with everytime you walk on the beach you are walking on micro plastics.I was at Cottesloe and all I could see was sand.It went on to cry about all the reefs bleaching and they have not.Apparently if we vote in Labor and the green party it will all get better |
