Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 7 of 11<<<56789>>>
19-04-2023 18:06
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
About 80% of the planet surface is covered in water. Water vapor makes up 0.2% to 4% of the atmosphere. man isn't the only one dumping crap in the ocean either. Nature has been doing it from the beginning, and always will. Rain runs off into rivers and streams, which eventual end up dumping in the oceans. There are also volcanoes under the ocean, which vent gases and crap, sometimes erupt. Man's contribution is pretty tiny, and there is a hell of a lot of water in the oceans.
19-04-2023 18:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:What is alkalinity? It is acid neutralizing capacity.

This is not the chemistry definition but I'm fine with it being your definition. It's quite refreshing to see you offer a definition; I really wish you'd do it more often.

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?
RE: alkaline is an adjective like amphibious19-04-2023 19:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:What is alkalinity? It is acid neutralizing capacity.

This is not the chemistry definition but I'm fine with it being your definition. It's quite refreshing to see you offer a definition; I really wish you'd do it more often.

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?




No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"

Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns.

Alkalinity is a noun. A measurable quantity, operationally defined by how much acid must be added to reach a designated endpoint pH.

One problem might arise from the definition of alkalinity as "acid neutralizing capacity". It is archaic and would be more correct if it said "acidity neutralization capacity". But like ocean "acidification", it is the term already being used and understood, even if it is technically incorrect.

Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7.

And the absurd claim that sea water shows bigger pH shift than pure water when acid is added was never recanted.

In all my years as a scientist, this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to.

Of course, I don't speak for the entire scientific community.

But at least I know the difference between alkaline and alkalinity.

Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces?
19-04-2023 20:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?
No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"

What if, perchance, one is found?


Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489
Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

Harold F. Hemond
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Downloaded by MIT on October 2, 2009 [url]http://pubs.acs.orgPublicationDate
ctober1,1990|doi:10.1021/es00080a005[/url]

The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters. However, in the presence of organic acids, ANC measurements are inconsistent with many conceptual definitions of ANC or Alk and do not provide an adequate characterization of the acid-base chemistry of water.

This is where you back yourself into a corner and force others to decide whether or not you are a troll infecting the discussion:


Im a BM wrote:Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns.

OK. It would appear that you are a troll.

Im a BM wrote:Alkalinity is a noun.

Acidity is a noun.

Im a BM wrote:Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7.

Acidic is an adjective for anything with pH less than 7.

Im a BM wrote:And the absurd claim that sea water shows bigger pH shift than pure water when acid is added was never recanted.

The question "Why should any rational adult believe in Climate Change?" has never been answered.

Im a BM wrote: In all my years as a scientist, this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to.

Apparently, in all your years, nobody ever pulled you aside and told you that you don't get to speak for any "community," that you only get to speak for yourself and that you must define all your terms when asked.

It's that last part that gives you away that you are clearly no scientist. No actual scientist would confuse science with a religion whereby sacred terms and dogma are never explained. No scientist would ever bitch and whine and gripe and snivel about having his religious sermon interrupted by CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS. One would have to be an absolute moron to think for even a moment that you are a scientist.

You don't get to shush questions from others on the basis that countless, unnamed others who are not participating in the discussion somehow "already know the answer." You need to be addressing the people involved in the discussion and answer their questions, otherwise be prepared to be recognized as the troll you are. You need to define all your terms specifically because:

1. You might have accidentally misspoken
2. Others might understand the same term(s) to mean something else, and understand different terms to mean what you mean.
3. Others might have misunderstood something else you said that becomes confusing
4. To confirm that you are not merely preaching some WACKY religion

... and if someone asks you a question, it's likely that he's not the only one who is thinking that.


The point is, if you'll just set aside the assumption that you somehow speak for science, check your religion at the door and just stick with your area of expertise, you'll get miles further. Sure, you'll get questions and perhaps corrected on some points, but you should consider that the bonus that makes it all worthwhile.


Im a BM wrote:Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian.

Enlighten me. What is the difference between synonyms? I'm sure Harvey would be eager to help you out.

Im a BM wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces?

It's funny that you mention this. Prior to your arrival, there weren't any problems that this community couldn't handle. Then suddenly, the board is getting spammed by your religious sermons in practically every single thread while you block-tackle those asking you questions.


Why should any rational adult believe that the ocean is losing its alkalinity?
RE: Acid, unlike alkaline, is both noun and adjective19-04-2023 21:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
"You cannot acidify an alkaline"

This nonsense sentence has been used at least a hundred times in this forum.

The term "acid", unlike the term "alkaline", is an adjective as well as a noun.

Acid as an adjective describes pH below 7, just as alkaline is the adjective for pH greater than 7.

But there are no physical substances referred to as "alkalines", whereas there are literally thousands of substances that are correctly called "acids".

So, "acid neutralizing capacity" actually makes sense.

But "alkaline neutralizing capacity", like trying to "acidify an alkaline", is nonsense.

Ocean "acidification" is not the process of the sea's pH shifting to less than 7.

It is the measurable depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, reflected in the measurable decrease in concentration of carbonate ion.

It is why oyster farms must now purchase carbonate salts to add to sea water in order for the larvae to form healthy shells.
19-04-2023 21:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:But there are no physical substances referred to as "alkalines",

I confess to this usage. I see it bothers you. Would you prefer I use the word "base" instead, i.e. "base neutralizing capacity"?


Im a BM wrote:Ocean "acidification" is not the process of the sea's pH shifting to less than 7. It is the measurable depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, reflected in the measurable decrease in concentration of carbonate ion.

This sounds like a very reasonable description ... presuming that this is actually occurring. If I were to ask you for the twelfth time why any rational adult should believe this is happening, you would be forced to EVADE because this is only dogma of your religion and is without any valid data support. Your talk of mangroves to stem this "problem" does nothing to explain why a rational adult should suddenly start believing that this is occurring.

Would you mind telling me who told you to believe that the ocean is losing it's alkalinity? Was it someone claiming to be a geophysibioanthrochemist?

Im a BM wrote: It is why oyster farms must now purchase carbonate salts to add to sea water in order for the larvae to form healthy shells.

All marine-based farms globally, or only oyster farms in a certain small location in an otherwise very large ocean, because some agglomeration of factors and other events is occurring in that location?
RE: Organic alkalinity - new kid on the block19-04-2023 21:48
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote].

[quote]Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489
Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

Harold F. Hemond
Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Downloaded by MIT on October 2, 2009 [url]http://pubs.acs.orgPublicationDate
ctober1,1990|doi:10.1021/es00080a005[/url]

The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters. However, in the presence of organic acids, ANC measurements are inconsistent with many conceptual definitions of ANC or Alk and do not provide an adequate characterization of the acid-base chemistry of water.





I have actually referenced this paper before in communications about organic alkalinity.

For years, the importance of organic acid anions as contributors to alkalinity was overlooked.

In the case of submarine groundwater discharge, these organic anions (deprotonated organic acids) can be 25% of total alkalinity.

This paper points out that organic acids need to be taken into account for more accurate understanding of alkalinity.

Since 2009, a lot of progress has been made in this area. The term "organic alkalinity" or ALKorg is now widely used and, more importantly, is now being measured directly in order to fill in the gaps.

I'm pretty sure that Harold and Hemond never once said anything about "alkaline neutralizing capacity" or "alkalinity neutralizing capacity".

They are scientists. They weren't just playing word games.

I've already cited their work, anyway.

If anyone wants to PM me, I could send you a bibliography about the subject, including the Harold and Hemond (2009) paper.
20-04-2023 12:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
"..the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water."

This is buffering basics backwards.

Learn what a buffer is. Discard of acid-base chemistry. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift.

pH is not a linear scale. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
Sea water is highly buffered with bicarbonate and much lesser amounts of carbonate. Little of the total alkalinity in sea arises from other oxyanions.

Learn what a buffer is. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
The only alkalinity or buffering in pH 7 water arises from the tiny concentration of hydroxide ion. That concentration is ten to the minus 7 molar.

pH 7 is not an alkaline. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
Pure water contains only 0.0000001 moles per liter hydroxide ion.

Made up number. Unit error.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the pH shift from adding one drop of acid to pure water is enormous.

Boundary error.
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, add one drop of acid to pH 8.2 sea water and the pH will be...

8.2 you would need a pH meter with three decimal places to see the difference.

Boundary error.
Im a BM wrote:
Whether or not the pH of the sea remains above pH 7 has nothing to do with concern about ocean "acidification", nor the definition of alkalinity.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
It is the concentration of carbonate ion that has changed so much with anthropogenic inputs of additional carbonic acid as carbon dioxide emissions.

Mantra 20r5. Equilibria problem.
Im a BM wrote:
And if someone who actually understands chemistry is interested,

You don't understand chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
there are some very effective and inexpensive solutions to restore alkalinity to the sea,

Seawater is already alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
even if we never get a handle on carbon dioxide emissions.

Define 'get a handle on carbon dioxide emissions'. What should it be? How do you plan to measure it?


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
20-04-2023 12:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:What is alkalinity? It is acid neutralizing capacity.

This is not the chemistry definition but I'm fine with it being your definition. It's quite refreshing to see you offer a definition; I really wish you'd do it more often.

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?

Would you define acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?




No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"

Science isn't 'training'. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
Im a BM wrote:
Trolls have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to distinguish adjectives from nouns.

....annnnnd I'm sure you are going to provide examples of being a troll.
Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity is a noun.

WRONG. Obviously, you flunked grammar too.
Im a BM wrote:
A measurable quantity, operationally defined by how much acid must be added to reach a designated endpoint pH.

Boundary error.
Im a BM wrote:
One problem might arise from the definition of alkalinity as "acid neutralizing capacity". It is archaic and would be more correct if it said "acidity neutralization capacity".

Use of adjective as noun. Grammar error.
Im a BM wrote:
But like ocean "acidification",

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
it is the term already being used and understood, even if it is technically incorrect.

No 'technical' about it. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
Alkaline is an adjective for anything with pH greater than 7.

WRONG. Use of noun as adjective. Grammar error.
Im a BM wrote:
In all my years as a scientist,

You are not a scientist.
Im a BM wrote:
this forum is the ONLY place where anyone debates about definitions for terms that the scientific community already agrees to.

Science isn't a community. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, I don't speak for the entire scientific community.

YOU JUST DID. Blatant lie.
Im a BM wrote:
But at least I know the difference between alkaline and alkalinity.

Blatant lie. You have already demonstrated that you don't. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
Like I know the difference between amphibious and amphibian.

You don't know that either. You have already shown that.
Im a BM wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if there were just ONE thread that didn't get covered in troll feces?

Stop posting then. Take Swan with you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-04-2023 12:28
20-04-2023 12:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
"You cannot acidify an alkaline"

This nonsense sentence has been used at least a hundred times in this forum.

Because you keep making the same error. You keep trying to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
The term "acid", unlike the term "alkaline", is an adjective as well as a noun.

Grammar error. Use of noun as adjective. Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Acid as an adjective describes pH below 7, just as alkaline is the adjective for pH greater than 7.

Grammar error. Use of noun as adjective.
Im a BM wrote:
But there are no physical substances referred to as "alkalines", whereas there are literally thousands of substances that are correctly called "acids".

See 'lye'. See 'oven cleaner'.
Im a BM wrote:
So, "acid neutralizing capacity" actually makes sense.

Of course it does. Not for the reasons, you state though.
Im a BM wrote:
But "alkaline neutralizing capacity", like trying to "acidify an alkaline", is nonsense.

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Ocean "acidification" is not the process of the sea's pH shifting to less than 7.

An acid is pH less than 7.
Im a BM wrote:
It is the measurable depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, reflected in the measurable decrease in concentration of carbonate ion.

Any pH greater than 7 is an alkaline. Learn what a buffer is. Mantra 20r1.
Im a BM wrote:
It is why oyster farms must now purchase carbonate salts to add to sea water in order for the larvae to form healthy shells.

They don't. Oysters don't need carbonate salts to form shells. Oh...and I used to farm oysters.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-04-2023 12:40
20-04-2023 12:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
Environ. Sci. Technol.1990,24,1486-1489
Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids
...deleted repetitious spam...

I have actually referenced this paper before in communications about organic alkalinity.

Use of adjective as noun. Grammar error. Repetition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
For years, the importance of organic acid anions as contributors to alkalinity was overlooked.

Acid is not alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
In the case of submarine groundwater discharge, these organic anions (deprotonated organic acids) can be 25% of total alkalinity.

Acid is not alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
This paper points out that organic acids need to be taken into account for more accurate understanding of alkalinity.

Acid is not alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Since 2009, a lot of progress has been made in this area. The term "organic alkalinity" or ALKorg is now widely used and, more importantly, is now being measured directly in order to fill in the gaps.

You can't measure acids as alkalis.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Harold and Hemond never once said anything about "alkaline neutralizing capacity" or "alkalinity neutralizing capacity".

They are scientists. They weren't just playing word games.

But you are.
Im a BM wrote:
I've already cited their work, anyway.

Cutting and pasting random opinions means nothing.
Im a BM wrote:
If anyone wants to PM me, I could send you a bibliography about the subject, including the Harold and Hemond (2009) paper.

*crickets*


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
20-04-2023 18:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:No trained scientist would call ANYTHING "alkaline neutralizing capacity"


I will concede that I can't find anyone (any knowledgeable person) who would characterize acidity as "alkaline neutralizing capacity." I will also admit that I never would have used that characterization either until I saw you refer to alkalinity as "acid neutralizing capacity" and so I asked.

The result of that little semantic rabbit hole is that I have once again encountered a particular sector of a particular commercial industry that uses its own wording in a manner that facilitates that industry, and has thus become established as standard usage within that industry ... but is not universally how it is taught in academia.

So, allow me to backpedal a little and say that sure, I can see the benefit to the water-analysis industry establishing a clear difference between a solution's alkalinity and its basicity. Your work in that industry had you focused on alkalinity as the total acidity neutralizing capacity, in the same manner that an engineer needs to look at total impedance. I, on the other hand, was looking alkalinity only as basicity on the pH scale, like a science student would discuss a mere resistor.

So, I'll grant you that there are ways that sea water can increase in "buffering" ability.

Nonetheless, you still have two problems that don't look like they will be going away anytime soon:

1. you still have not explained why any rational adult should believe that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow being depleted

2. Given the sheer immenseness of the ocean, all of your combined recommended/suggested courses of action to increase ocean alkalinity are insufficient to have even a discernible impact, much less any one individually; yet each one carries a substantial price tag.

This will result in the inconvenient question of why any particular course of action should be undertaken.
RE: "Acid is not alkaline" another mystery solved20-04-2023 21:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Into the Night wrote:.

Use of adjective as noun. Grammar error. Repetition fallacy.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
You can't measure acids as alkalis.
[quote]
Cutting and pasting random opinions means nothing.
[quote]



Aren't you supposed to say "You cannot acidify an alkaline"?

Parrot poop is so enlightening.
21-04-2023 01:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Use of adjective as noun. Grammar error. Repetition fallacy.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
Acid is not alkaline.
[quote]
You can't measure acids as alkalis.
[quote]
Cutting and pasting random opinions means nothing.
[quote]



Aren't you supposed to say "You cannot acidify an alkaline"?

You can't. Apparently you haven't yet figured out how to use the quoting system either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-04-2023 01:56
25-04-2023 17:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:Aren't you supposed to say "You cannot acidify an alkaline"?

Have you ever basidified an acid?
RE: Ignorance about buffering AND pH29-04-2023 20:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.

[quote]




This post displays ignorance on multiple levels.

It gets the basic concept of buffering absolutely BACKWARDS. It claims that pure water is more buffered against pH shift than pure water. Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

It suggests that only a "magical acid" could have pH = 0.

Let's try a solution of 1 N hydrochloric acid, or 1 N sulfuric acid, or 1 N nitric acid, and the list goes on.

At 1 N (1 normal) the hydrogen ion is at 1 mol/liter.

pH is the negative log of that concentration.

Ten to the zero power = 1 the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in a 1 molar acid is zero.

Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

But it is okay that not everyone passed high school chemistry.

What is NOT okay is the arrogance. "So, Mr. Chemistry genius, the correct answer is..."

A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant.

Even WITHOUT the insults and false accusations that are part of most of his posts, such a person is not worthy of any kind of respect.

And this fool has dominated the discussion here for more than eight years.
29-04-2023 21:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.






This post displays ignorance on multiple levels.

It gets the basic concept of buffering absolutely BACKWARDS. It claims that pure water is more buffered against pH shift than pure water. Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

It suggests that only a "magical acid" could have pH = 0.

Let's try a solution of 1 N hydrochloric acid, or 1 N sulfuric acid, or 1 N nitric acid, and the list goes on.

At 1 N (1 normal) the hydrogen ion is at 1 mol/liter.

pH is the negative log of that concentration.

Ten to the zero power = 1 the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in a 1 molar acid is zero.

Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

But it is okay that not everyone passed high school chemistry.

What is NOT okay is the arrogance. "So, Mr. Chemistry genius, the correct answer is..."

A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant.

Even WITHOUT the insults and false accusations that are part of most of his posts, such a person is not worthy of any kind of respect.

And this fool has dominated the discussion here for more than eight years.


LOL, unfortunately you need to accept that schizzos have both their own math and alphabet as well


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: "Do the math" - doesn't know what logarithms are11-05-2023 21:13
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.






This post displays ignorance on multiple levels.

It gets the basic concept of buffering absolutely BACKWARDS. It claims that pure water is more buffered against pH shift than pure water. Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

It suggests that only a "magical acid" could have pH = 0.

Let's try a solution of 1 N hydrochloric acid, or 1 N sulfuric acid, or 1 N nitric acid, and the list goes on.

At 1 N (1 normal) the hydrogen ion is at 1 mol/liter.

pH is the negative log of that concentration.

Ten to the zero power = 1 the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in a 1 molar acid is zero.

Something they teach in high school chemistry is apparently not understood.

But it is okay that not everyone passed high school chemistry.

What is NOT okay is the arrogance. "So, Mr. Chemistry genius, the correct answer is..."

A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant.

Even WITHOUT the insults and false accusations that are part of most of his posts, such a person is not worthy of any kind of respect.

And this fool has dominated the discussion here for more than eight years.


LOL, unfortunately you need to accept that schizzos have both their own math and alphabet as well




"Do the math", was my favorite part.

Coming from the guy who either didn't know that the pH scale is logarithmic, or didn't understand that pH = 0 when hydrogen ion concentration is 1 molar.

And displayed complete ignorance about buffering. Got it backwards.

Yet still wants to play word games about the term "alkalinity".
11-05-2023 21:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant.

Will you unambiguously define "the Global Climate"?

Will you explain why you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?

Will you explain why you claimed the Dominican reef had mostly disappeared?
12-05-2023 07:28
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:A scientifically illiterate troll has the audacity to pretend to be an "expert in science." That is both arrogant and ignorant.

Will you unambiguously define "the Global Climate"?

Will you explain why you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?

Will you explain why you claimed the Dominican reef had mostly disappeared?


Alkalinity is something most people know. Have a swimming pool, you will maintain alkalinity. That has to do with acidity, etc. It's said that increased levels of CO2 is the reason.
With the Dominican reefs, that is where the north equatorial current becomes the Gulf Stream current. Why aren't you aware of how a warming ocean is harmful to reefs?
12-05-2023 17:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James__, it's good to have you back.

James_ wrote: Alkalinity is something most people know. Have a swimming pool, you will maintain alkalinity.

This is an interesting example of industry steering terminology. Most people are familiar with the pH scale and have a good feel for the logarithmic/exponential nature of acidity and basicity/alkalinity. However, one thing I learned from squeal over's arrival is that the term "alkalinity" is used by industry in a manner that differs from the alkalinity/basicity of the pH scale. Instead of "alkalinity" referring to how far from 7.0 a solution is (that semantic has been relegated to the term "base" or "basicity") and is used by industry, as squeal over specified, to refer to a solution's ability to neutralize an acid. This might seem like the exact same thing but there are differences that had never occurred to me, sort of like electrical resistance is similar to, but not the same thing as, electrical impedance (which has a bit more to it).

It reminds me of the word "fuse" which I had always been taught could be correctly written "fuse" or "fuze" and could mean either an electrical fuse or a fuse on fireworks. The Department of Defense, knowing that it does not own the English language, nonetheless has mandated that the spelling "fuse" is an electrical fuse and the spelling "fuze" refers to what you light for a bomb. They did this to prevent ordnance disposal units from ever being confused by instructions that read "Always disconnect the fuse before disconnecting the fuse, and use a material separator preventing the fuse from coming in contact with the casing, and then place the fuse in contact with the casing."

James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Will you explain why you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?
That has to do with acidity, etc. It's said that increased levels of CO2 is the reason.

Maybe squeal over will explain to you that "acid protons" [H+] are what are needed, not CO2.

James_ wrote: Why aren't you aware of how a warming ocean is harmful to reefs?

Warming waters are not harmful to reefs.

James__, you have been duped. Corals get their color from zooxanthellae. When water changes in temperature too rapidly, corals tend to jettison their zooxanthellae and lose their color in the process, becoming white. The zooxanthellae then return and color returns to the coral.

The reefs don't suffer damage from any currents or changes in temperature.
12-05-2023 22:30
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, it's good to have you back.

James_ wrote: Alkalinity is something most people know. Have a swimming pool, you will maintain alkalinity.

This is an interesting example of industry steering terminology. Most people are familiar with the pH scale and have a good feel for the logarithmic/exponential nature of acidity and basicity/alkalinity. However, one thing I learned from squeal over's arrival is that the term "alkalinity" is used by industry in a manner that differs from the alkalinity/basicity of the pH scale. Instead of "alkalinity" referring to how far from 7.0 a solution is (that semantic has been relegated to the term "base" or "basicity") and is used by industry, as squeal over specified, to refer to a solution's ability to neutralize an acid. This might seem like the exact same thing but there are differences that had never occurred to me, sort of like electrical resistance is similar to, but not the same thing as, electrical impedance (which has a bit more to it).

It reminds me of the word "fuse" which I had always been taught could be correctly written "fuse" or "fuze" and could mean either an electrical fuse or a fuse on fireworks. The Department of Defense, knowing that it does not own the English language, nonetheless has mandated that the spelling "fuse" is an electrical fuse and the spelling "fuze" refers to what you light for a bomb. They did this to prevent ordnance disposal units from ever being confused by instructions that read "Always disconnect the fuse before disconnecting the fuse, and use a material separator preventing the fuse from coming in contact with the casing, and then place the fuse in contact with the casing."

James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Will you explain why you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?
That has to do with acidity, etc. It's said that increased levels of CO2 is the reason.

Maybe squeal over will explain to you that "acid protons" [H+] are what are needed, not CO2.

James_ wrote: Why aren't you aware of how a warming ocean is harmful to reefs?

Warming waters are not harmful to reefs.

James__, you have been duped. Corals get their color from zooxanthellae. When water changes in temperature too rapidly, corals tend to jettison their zooxanthellae and lose their color in the process, becoming white. The zooxanthellae then return and color returns to the coral.

The reefs don't suffer damage from any currents or changes in temperature.


So you just learned about buffer solutions now?
You really have no clue about science, do you.


Only fools keep denying man made climate change.
Attached image:

13-05-2023 03:39
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, it's good to have you back.

James_ wrote: Alkalinity is something most people know. Have a swimming pool, you will maintain alkalinity.

This is an interesting example of industry steering terminology. Most people are familiar with the pH scale and have a good feel for the logarithmic/exponential nature of acidity and basicity/alkalinity. However, one thing I learned from squeal over's arrival is that the term "alkalinity" is used by industry in a manner that differs from the alkalinity/basicity of the pH scale. Instead of "alkalinity" referring to how far from 7.0 a solution is (that semantic has been relegated to the term "base" or "basicity") and is used by industry, as squeal over specified, to refer to a solution's ability to neutralize an acid. This might seem like the exact same thing but there are differences that had never occurred to me, sort of like electrical resistance is similar to, but not the same thing as, electrical impedance (which has a bit more to it).

It reminds me of the word "fuse" which I had always been taught could be correctly written "fuse" or "fuze" and could mean either an electrical fuse or a fuse on fireworks. The Department of Defense, knowing that it does not own the English language, nonetheless has mandated that the spelling "fuse" is an electrical fuse and the spelling "fuze" refers to what you light for a bomb. They did this to prevent ordnance disposal units from ever being confused by instructions that read "Always disconnect the fuse before disconnecting the fuse, and use a material separator preventing the fuse from coming in contact with the casing, and then place the fuse in contact with the casing."

James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Will you explain why you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?
That has to do with acidity, etc. It's said that increased levels of CO2 is the reason.

Maybe squeal over will explain to you that "acid protons" [H+] are what are needed, not CO2.

James_ wrote: Why aren't you aware of how a warming ocean is harmful to reefs?

Warming waters are not harmful to reefs.

James__, you have been duped. Corals get their color from zooxanthellae. When water changes in temperature too rapidly, corals tend to jettison their zooxanthellae and lose their color in the process, becoming white. The zooxanthellae then return and color returns to the coral.

The reefs don't suffer damage from any currents or changes in temperature.


So you just learned about buffer solutions now?
You really have no clue about science, do you.


Actually only fools believe that the climate never changed before man


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
13-05-2023 09:30
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
Swan wrote:
Actually only fools believe that the climate never changed before man


Well, that too.


Only fools keep denying man made climate change.
13-05-2023 21:24
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Swan wrote:
Actually only fools believe that the climate never changed before man


Well, that too.


How you be so certain man changed anything? This is our first inter-glacial period, where we had the capacity to observe and document. Even then, we missed 10,000 years, more or less, before a written language was developed... Face it, you got drawn into a cult. You belief, is purely faith based. The doomsday 'signs', are just recycled garbage used by many previous cults through out history.

Just as we are clueless about climate in the distant past. We really have no clue of what 'normal' should be, or how long it might last. All we really have is what has been observed and recorded. Everything else is a guess. A consensus doesn't make it true, just a cult following, based on faith. The reality is that we are just along for the ride. Sometimes the road is a little bumpy, and we spill beer all over. We just clean up what we can, open a fresh beer...
RE: a year later - still doesn't get it13-05-2023 21:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:

Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter. Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.

Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.

Fortunately, calcium carbonate has molecular weight very close to 100 grams per mole so it's not too hard to convert. You just have to remember that it's two moles ANC for every mole of CaCO3, and 100 grams per mole.

A solution with alkalinity of 1 gram per liter CaCO3 equivalents has 0.01 mole CaCO3 per liter and 0.02 moles per liter alkalinity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that dodging when you could have just read it, instead of belittling it.

You wouldn't have had to hide behind whether the pH is greater than 7 as the ultimate standard for alkalinity.

All you had to do was make some minimal attempt to understand this the first time could have spared you some humiliation.

I will be using quotes of your absurd assertions about alkalinity in multiple future lessons.

The "equation" was right there, if you bothered to try to understand the chemical principle.

The conversion factor was right there, if you bothered to try to understand that alkalinity is reported in some kind of "unit".

"Unit error" was your only reply, and then back to whether or not pH > 7.

You even explicitly insisted that the units I showed you (moles per liter ANC, or grams CaCO3 equivalents per liter) you weren't real. Pretty stubborn.

Then you finally looked it up and discovered it had something to do with anions that provide acid neutralizing capacity.

But you still didn't get it. And apparently you still don't. You are not teachable.[/quote]




The target audience for this thread would have been people who actually care about ocean "acidification" and wanted to discuss biogeochemistry related to it.

Instead, it just attracted scientifically illiterate trolls who wanted to play stupid word games.

Someday, the vermin might go away.

Or leave at least ONE thread for the 99% of members who don't want to be insulted by idiots.
13-05-2023 21:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention.
13-05-2023 22:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
Im a BM wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:

Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter. Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.

Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.

Fortunately, calcium carbonate has molecular weight very close to 100 grams per mole so it's not too hard to convert. You just have to remember that it's two moles ANC for every mole of CaCO3, and 100 grams per mole.

A solution with alkalinity of 1 gram per liter CaCO3 equivalents has 0.01 mole CaCO3 per liter and 0.02 moles per liter alkalinity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that dodging when you could have just read it, instead of belittling it.

You wouldn't have had to hide behind whether the pH is greater than 7 as the ultimate standard for alkalinity.

All you had to do was make some minimal attempt to understand this the first time could have spared you some humiliation.

I will be using quotes of your absurd assertions about alkalinity in multiple future lessons.

The "equation" was right there, if you bothered to try to understand the chemical principle.

The conversion factor was right there, if you bothered to try to understand that alkalinity is reported in some kind of "unit".

"Unit error" was your only reply, and then back to whether or not pH > 7.

You even explicitly insisted that the units I showed you (moles per liter ANC, or grams CaCO3 equivalents per liter) you weren't real. Pretty stubborn.

Then you finally looked it up and discovered it had something to do with anions that provide acid neutralizing capacity.

But you still didn't get it. And apparently you still don't. You are not teachable.





The target audience for this thread would have been people who actually care about ocean "acidification" and wanted to discuss biogeochemistry related to it.

Instead, it just attracted scientifically illiterate trolls who wanted to play stupid word games.

Someday, the vermin might go away.

Or leave at least ONE thread for the 99% of members who don't want to be insulted by idiots.[/quote]

But, you failed to comprehend, that the ocean isn't a beaker or flask in a laboratory. By the time you test your sample, the ocean has already change, where you took that sample. The oceans are huge. Your tiny samples are pretty meaningless, over the entire ocean. You don't get the same measurement, for every where you take samples.
13-05-2023 22:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:This is buffering basics backwards.

I only now caught this because you still haven't managed to get the quoting feature to work for you.

What I wrote is correct. You are engaging in bad math by inverting the exponential into a logarithmic.

You asked which solution would have the most pronounced effect (exponential), not which solution would slide the furthest along the pH axis (logarithmic).

Ocean water would be most profoundly affected by a drop of pure acid, although it would slide the least along the pH axis.

Your question is best expressed as:

Magnitude of Effect = Delta(Solution) / Delta (pH)

Im a BM wrote:Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift.

Exactly. The overall effect of one drop of pure acid in seawater is 2000 times more potent than that same drop in pure water because basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity.

Let me know if you have any questions.
13-05-2023 22:43
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention.




I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll.


Only fools keep denying man made climate change.
Attached image:

RE: I DO have some questions14-05-2023 11:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This is buffering basics backwards.

I only now caught this because you still haven't managed to get the quoting feature to work for you.

What I wrote is correct. You are engaging in bad math by inverting the exponential into a logarithmic.

You asked which solution would have the most pronounced effect (exponential), not which solution would slide the furthest along the pH axis (logarithmic).

Ocean water would be most profoundly affected by a drop of pure acid, although it would slide the least along the pH axis.

Your question is best expressed as:

Magnitude of Effect = Delta(Solution) / Delta (pH)

Im a BM wrote:Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift.

Exactly. The overall effect of one drop of pure acid in seawater is 2000 times more potent than that same drop in pure water because basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity.

Let me know if you have any questions.




I have some questions

What is the "exponential" effect, related to basicity, that is 2000 times greater in sea water, compared to pure water, when one drop of acid is added?

Presumably, it involves some chemical parameter that can be measured and is reported in some kind of numeric unit you are willing to identify.

What is the mystery variable in your equation, referred to as "solution"?
It must be numeric, because it is used in a ratio.
Does it have a name?
Are you willing to share what units are used to measure/report it?

What units are used for the "exponential" "basicity scale"?

What distinguishes "basicity" from "alkalinity"? (alkalinity scale is linear)
14-05-2023 12:58
duncan61
★★★★★
(2021)
The target audience for this thread would have been people who actually care about ocean "acidification" and wanted to discuss biogeochemistry related to it.

Instead, it just attracted scientifically illiterate trolls who wanted to play stupid word games.

Someday, the vermin might go away.

Or leave at least ONE thread for the 99% of members who don't want to be insulted by idiots.

I care about the ocean a lot and test the PH at Trigg island regularly and its still 8.3. Now what. I have just read a non related article stating half the People in Thailand are going to die because of climate change. Is it wrong I find that amusing and can only hope half of Asia goes with them. What happens if they migrate to Australia. Do they still die anyway. Good to be back Sealover
14-05-2023 17:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:I have some questions

I'm happy to answer.

Im a BM wrote:What is the "exponential" effect, related to basicity,

I understand your confusion on the matter. Most people aren't very proficient in math and don't completely understand that "exponential" is the inverse of "logarithmic" and vice-versa.

Let me know if you have any questions about inverses.

The power of Hydrogen is exponential. Chemically, sea water will far more powerfully neutralize any acid than will pure water, much more powerfully than the small 1.3 pH difference would seem to indicate. This is because the pH SCALE is logarithmic in order put the exponential power of Hydrogen on a simple line.

Søren Peter Lauritz Sørensen established the logarithm to scale pH as -log[H+]

Again, a logarithm is necessary to invert an exponential function, and nature gives us an exponential function in the power of Hydrogen, which is the (negative) exponent you have to put on the number 10.

Ergo, the sea water will exhibit a smaller change along the pH line because it's ability to accept the acid's ions is exponentially greater.. Sea water has a higher pH (8.3, Duncan's value) than pure water (7) and thus will have a smaller (inverted) pH change for the same one drop of acid, reflecting the much greater relative power of seawater's ability to neutralize the acid.

Im a BM wrote:that is 2000 times greater in sea water, compared to pure water, when one drop of acid is added?

I was going by your math and your numbers but yes, that is the nature of exponential functions.



Im a BM wrote:What distinguishes "basicity" from "alkalinity"? (alkalinity scale is linear)

You do ask a lot of questions for someone who never answers any.

"Basicity" is usually strictly a reference to the pH scale whereas "alkalinity" refers to the total capacity of a solution to accept hydrogen ions.
RE: "Basicity", pH, and "profoundly affected"15-05-2023 19:43
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This is buffering basics backwards.

I only now caught this because you still haven't managed to get the quoting feature to work for you.

What I wrote is correct. You are engaging in bad math by inverting the exponential into a logarithmic.

You asked which solution would have the most pronounced effect (exponential), not which solution would slide the furthest along the pH axis (logarithmic).

Ocean water would be most profoundly affected by a drop of pure acid, although it would slide the least along the pH axis.

Your question is best expressed as:

Magnitude of Effect = Delta(Solution) / Delta (pH)

Im a BM wrote:Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift.

Exactly. The overall effect of one drop of pure acid in seawater is 2000 times more potent than that same drop in pure water because basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity.

Let me know if you have any questions.





In chemistry, the term "basicity" most often refers to the whole number of protons (hydrogen ions) that a molecule of a given acid can release into solution upon complete dissociation.

Hydrochloric acid (HCl), basicity = 1; sulfuric acid (H2SO4), basicity = 2; phosphoric acid (H3PO4), basicity = 3; silicic acid (H4SiO4), basicity = 4, etc.

If these are placed on a "basicity scale", it is a linear sequence of whole numbers.

The "basicity scale" most often referred to by chemists is the Lewis Basicity Scale, and it is certainly not exponential.

"Basicity" is also used in more laymen's terms as the converse of "acidity".

In this context, the "basicity scale" is simply looking at the pH scale in reverse, acidity goes up in one direction, basicity goes up in the opposite direction.

The pH scale is, indeed, exponential.

A logarithm is the base 10 exponent of a given number.

The number 100, for example, is 10 to the second power. The exponent is 2. The logarithm is 2. Logarithms are, by definition, "exponential".


Still no clue what the "profound" change is that sea water shows upon addition of one drop of acid, not seen when this is done with pure water.

Let's try two aquariums with live fish. One in sea water. One in pure water.

We add one drop per hour of acid into each tank.

Now we're looking to see the most "profound" change, so we have a pH meter, a conductivity meter, a salinity meter, total dissolved solids, a chloride electrode... and I wish we had been told which chemical parameter is expected to change so "profoundly" to measure it as well.

Which fish died first? Obviously the one in the unbuffered water. Maybe that counts as "profoundly affected".

The other parameters all show the greatest change in the pure water tank.

Salinity, electrical conductivity, chloride concentration, total dissolved solids, pH all changed by orders of magnitude in the pure water tank.

Those same chemical parameter showed barely discernable change in the sea water tank.

I guess that mystery variable will remain a mystery.

We'll never know what "Mr. chemistry genius" would have measured to prove he is correct about how much more profound the changes are to sea water.

But if he is right, this shows how sensitive sea water is to profound changes caused by the input of acid, and raises alarms about ocean "acidification".
15-05-2023 20:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:In chemistry, the term "basicity" most often refers to the whole number of protons (hydrogen ions) that a molecule of a given acid can release into solution upon complete dissociation.

I'm willing to grant you that perhaps practicing chemists use this term in this way, and now that you have specified this, I'm happy to go along with this usage. Chemistry itself, however, has no terminology preferences and those of us who are not practicing chemists tend to use basicity as the opposite of acidity on the pH scale, as you pointed out when you mentioned "Basicity" is also used in more laymen's terms as the converse of "acidity". This is, in fact, how I was using the terms "basicity" and "alkalinity" until I recently adopted the semantic "solution's overall capacity to neutralize an acid" for alkalinity and now I'll add the above semantic to "basicity" ... but I still need a term to refer to the opposite of acidity ... and "basicity" is going to have to fit that bill as well.

Im a BM wrote:Hydrochloric acid (HCl), basicity = 1; sulfuric acid (H2SO4), basicity = 2; phosphoric acid (H3PO4), basicity = 3; silicic acid (H4SiO4), basicity = 4, etc.

Interesting. I shall read further.

Im a BM wrote:The "basicity scale" most often referred to by chemists is the Lewis Basicity Scale, and it is certainly not exponential.

I can see that. It's not linear either. It's just a count, i.e. a number.

Is there an alkalinity equivalent? i.e. the number of hydrogen ions that a molecule can/will absorb?

Im a BM wrote:Still no clue what the "profound" change is that sea water shows upon addition of one drop of acid, not seen when this is done with pure water.

The confusion here is that you are focused on the solution when acid is added and I am focusing on the acid being neutralized. Sea water is far more powerful on an acid than pure water. You asked which one would have a greater effect and that has to be sea water. If you had asked "which one will result in the greatest change in pH value of the solution?" then that would have been a different question and yes, pure water changes in pH the most.

Im a BM wrote:Let's try two aquariums with live fish. One in sea water. One in pure water.

How about this instead? Combine one ml of sufuric acid with one ml of sea water, and one ml of sulfuric acid with one ml of pure water. Which one, i.e. sea water or pure water, neutralizes the most, or has the most profound effect? Yes, the answer is obvious, but this is how I was viewing your question initially.

Oh, by the way, don't fall into the tmiddles trap. When you propose a demonstration or experiment of some kind, don't include living things. The resulting overcomplication gets your results discarded. Always "go simpler." I say this because I appreciate your "live fish" thought experiment, but sea water fish might have differing sensitivities/tolerances to pH changes from fresh water fish and suddenly different explanations are claimed for the results.

Im a BM wrote:We'll never know what "Mr. chemistry genius" would have measured to prove he is correct about how much more profound the changes are to sea water.

Too funny! I was "measuring" the changes to the acid, not to the water.

I hope that clears things up.
RE: more contradictions16-05-2023 01:49
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This is buffering basics backwards.

I only now caught this because you still haven't managed to get the quoting feature to work for you.

What I wrote is correct. You are engaging in bad math by inverting the exponential into a logarithmic.

You asked which solution would have the most pronounced effect (exponential), not which solution would slide the furthest along the pH axis (logarithmic).

Ocean water would be most profoundly affected by a drop of pure acid, although it would slide the least along the pH axis.

Your question is best expressed as:

Magnitude of Effect = Delta(Solution) / Delta (pH)

Im a BM wrote:Given that sea water has more than 2000 times the alkalinity of pH 7 water, it would take more than 2000 times as many drops as acid to get the same pH shift.

Exactly. The overall effect of one drop of pure acid in seawater is 2000 times more potent than that same drop in pure water because basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity.

Let me know if you have any questions.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, now we have been given an entirely new explanation.

The original discussion was about how one drop of acid would impact sea water chemistry versus that of pure water.

Now, it turns out that "I was measuring changes to the acid, not to the water"

Because "you are focused on the solution when acid is added and I am focusing on the acid being neutralized."

Yet the mystery variable in the equation called "solution" rather than "acid being neutralized". Supposedly it was this "solution" parameter that changed so much in sea water upon addition of one drop of acid that sea water was far more "profoundly affected" than pure water.

Well, now we know that it was all about "changes to the acid, not to the water."

I guess it makes sense that a thread about ocean "acidification" and alkalinity depletion would be most concerned about what happens to the acid, not to the water. A reasonable assumption, right?

What has also now been clarified is that reference to the "basicity scale" was in order to "use basicity as the opposite of acidity on the pH scale".

But what about the earlier claim that "...basicity is exponential. It's the pH scale that is logarithmic (inverse) of basicity and acidity".

One might get the impression that this implied that the basicity scale and the pH scale were not the same thing, with an important distinction between one being "exponential" and the other "logarithmic".

Okay, what is the big difference between "the acid being neutralized" by pure water versus sea water? What are the "changes to the acid and not to the water" that are so much more "profoundly affected" by sea water versus pure water. With an impact so important, it outweighs something as insignificant as pH change.

Well, first the acid completely dissociates into hydrogen ions and the associated anions. No different in sea water versus pure water.

Next, nearly all the hydrogen ions get neutralized by attaching to an anion and forming a very weak acid that does not dissociate.

In pure water, the only available anion to do this is hydroxide, and there aren't many of them around. But we are just adding one drop of acid to a large volume of water. Virtually all the added acid, at least in the first drop, will be neutralized by reacting with hydroxide ions to form water molecules.

In sea water, there is more than 10 times as much hydroxide ion present as in pure water (more than one pH unit higher). That will be the most reactive form of alkalinity to neutralize the first drop of acid added.

The overwhelming majority of alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate ions. As more acid is added, bicarbonate will dominate the neutralization, forming carbonic acid (a very weak acid) which does not dissociate.

And as far as ocean "acidification" is concerned, the most important impact is to selectively deplete the pool of carbonate ions, to a much greater degree (proportionately) than it depletes bicarbonate.

But this will be the last time I bother addressing anything new said by the scientifically illiterate troll who insulted me way too many times.

I'm sure that there will be more word games to try to explain that he was right all along to say that sea water is more "profoundly affected" by addition of one drop of acid, compared to pure water. I mean, just look at what happened to the acid, right?

In the unlikely event that something new is said that is worthy of response, I would probably dig up one of the old quotes that displays appalling ignorance.

The guy obviously never studied chemistry, and shouldn't pretend to understand it in some way that is superior to others.
16-05-2023 12:46
duncan61
★★★★★
(2021)
Seabitch. IBdM is now living rent free in your head. I am glad he finally moved out of mine. Your only option is to move to Reddit like I did. The walk of shame is not that bad. To the subject. Are you claiming there is an uptake of CO2 in the ocean and it is lowering the PH. Most of the ocean is over 5.C and above that the CO2 is outgassing. CO2 will not stay in a liquid that is warming so the omly place absorbing is the poles and the currents move the water around. Its still 8.3 at my local beach and Antarctica is the next stop South of Albany. Our coastline is mostly limestone reefs till you get to Broome about 3000 Km. I did some work for a bloke who ran lance lime and what they do is dig limestone out the ground behind the sand dunes then crush it back to lime and then apply it to the farmers soil after harvest then the rains wash it into the soil to reduce acid soil to grow stuff better. It works, Our soils are very acidic here which is why we cannot use traditional lead/tin solder in the ground on copper pipe and have to use silver brazing alloy. Show me a picture of you with a topless islander chick where the ocean PH is less than 8 PH. Yah lying ****er. See you over at reddit clown
16-05-2023 17:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
Im a BM wrote:Well, now we have been given an entirely new explanation.

It's the same explanation. I don't know why you are hung up on this point. In fact, you should have anticipated the confusion because you cause it ... intentionally. You will not define your terms. You will not clarify your terms. In this case, you ambiguously used the term "impact" and left it at that. You fully acknowledge that what I wrote is correct, i.e. that the acidity and basicity are exponential and that consequently sea water will far more powerfully neutralize acids than pure water. You seem to be perfectly fine with all of this when you are expressing it, but you obsess over how I must be mistaken if I express it.

In the future, define your terms and answer questions, then you won't be causing confusion. I gave you the correct answer. Can we move on to the next point, or do I need to explain to you that sea water neutralizes acids more powerfully than pure water?

Im a BM wrote:The original discussion was about how one drop of acid would impact sea water chemistry versus that of pure water.

You asked which would show a greater impact, sea water or pure water.

Im a BM wrote: Yet the mystery ...

There was no mystery. There was only the confusion you caused. Imagine how simple this would have been had you taken a moment to be clear.

Im a BM wrote:What has also now been clarified is that reference to the "basicity scale" was in order to "use basicity as the opposite of acidity on the pH scale".

Yes, that is how I use "basicity" ... in addition to the new semantic that you shared, i.e. number of protons an acid molecule can release into an alkaline. Thank you.

One might get the impression that this implied that the [b]basicity scale and the pH scale were not the same thing, with an important distinction between one being "exponential" and the other "logarithmic".

The pH scale is not the basicity scale. Basicity is exponential along the pH scale and the basicity scale is a just a count, i.e. a number of protons.

Different scales.

Im a BM wrote:Okay, what is the big difference between "the acid being neutralized" by pure water versus sea water? What are the "changes to the acid and not to the water" that are so much more "profoundly affected" by sea water versus pure water.

The sea water/acid solution will obviously result in a higher pH than the pure water/acid solution. The sea water won't be moving as much along the pH scale because it will make the acid do more of the moving, moreso than pure water will.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Im a BM wrote:Well, first the acid completely dissociates into hydrogen ions and the associated anions. No different in sea water versus pure water.

... but the resulting solutions differ in pH.

Im a BM wrote:Next, nearly all the hydrogen ions get neutralized by attaching to an anion and forming a very weak acid that does not dissociate.

I presumed that all of the acid would be neutralized because of the small quantity, but I was not aware that there would remain an acid somehow. Are you saying that the resulting solution will contain some acid that cannot be further neutralized by the remaining alkalinity?

Im a BM wrote:In sea water, there is more than 10 times as much hydroxide ion present as in pure water (more than one pH unit higher). That will be the most reactive form of alkalinity to neutralize the first drop of acid added.

We seem to agree on this point. Perhaps we can move on.

Im a BM wrote:The overwhelming majority of alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate ions. As more acid is added, bicarbonate will dominate the neutralization, forming carbonic acid (a very weak acid) which does not dissociate.

Good to know.

Im a BM wrote:And as far as ocean "acidification" is concerned, the most important impact is to selectively deplete the pool of carbonate ions, to a much greater degree (proportionately) than it depletes bicarbonate.

Why do you believe the ocean is losing alkalinity?

.
16-05-2023 20:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
The ocean is losing alkalinity because of over-fishing. Fish piss is alkaline. There are no longer enough fish pissing in the oceans....
16-05-2023 20:38
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
The ocean is losing alkalinity because of over-fishing. Fish piss is alkaline. There are no longer enough fish pissing in the oceans....
Page 7 of 11<<<56789>>>





Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification32305-12-2023 22:09
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity213-07-2023 15:50
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10205-06-2023 13:19
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution121-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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