| 10-03-2022 11:03 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
I am hearing problem solved.Maybe the organisms can move.Blue whales are being sighted swimming off the coast of Spain and clowns like you say its a bad thing.That they are moving because of climate change.The fact that it was their natural habitat before they were hunted to near extinction is not relevant because everything humans do is bad.Wake up.The oceans are in much better condition than in the 70s. |
| RE: Definition Gestapo missed a violation10-03-2022 12:09 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
sealover wrote:
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.[/quote]
Another revealing, teachable moment.
I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.
Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.
Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)
Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.
Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.
Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition Gestapo missed a major violation here. Demonstrably false chemistry, in fact.
As a good Communist, it is my duty in this situation to humble myself before others in a self criticism session.
Sulfite is a MONOvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Sulfate is a TRIvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Whatever tiny shred of credibility I had left is gone now. |
| 10-03-2022 12:44 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
Go down to your nearest ocean and test the PH of the sea water.I bet it is 8.3 |
| RE: Definition Gestapo missed reverse sting operation10-03-2022 21:09 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
Another revealing, teachable moment.
I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.
Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.
Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)
Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.
Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.
Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition Gestapo missed a major violation here. Demonstrably false chemistry, in fact.
As a good Communist, it is my duty in this situation to humble myself before others in a self criticism session.
Sulfite is a MONOvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Sulfate is a TRIvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Whatever tiny shred of credibility I had left is gone now.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition Gestapo missed the reverse sting operation.
I made an error about the chemistry that could have been legitimately criticized.
I pointed out that error and "corrected" it with a new error.
This time, there should have been no missing it. It was offered as bait.
I will continue to use the same terms that everyone else uses in their scientific papers.
This does not mean that I speak for everyone. We just speak the same language.
Part of that language is chemistry. Whether or not an ion is trivalent or divalent matters. But only if someone knows what the terms mean.
I have never been to a scientific conference where anyone demanded that someone else define their terms.
Nor have I participated in any discussion among members of the scientific community where anyone resorted to personal insults and accusations of nefarious hidden agendas.
It seems like pure evasion to insist that every word be challenged for a definition.
It seems like anyone who pays attention to the chemistry and understands it would have seized upon the opening offered to point out my error. Well, given that they are so committed to proving me wrong that they resort to personal insults.
Why not show everyone where the science is wrong instead of just killing the messenger?
Well, that would require some actual understanding of science. |
| 10-03-2022 23:14 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
Another revealing, teachable moment.
I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is a fully oxidized oxyanion. It's as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfur has multiple oxidation states.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is the most highly reduced form of sulfur.
Elemental yellow sulfur is the next most reduced form.
Organic forms of sulfur are still less reduced (i.e. more oxidized)
Sulfite, the divalent oxyanion is almost as oxidized as sulfur can get.
Sulfate, the trivalent oxyanion is fully burned out. No electrons left to lose.
Of course, there are always two sides to every debate.
Anyone who wonders if sulfate can be reduced should Google "sulfate reduction"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition Gestapo missed a major violation here. Demonstrably false chemistry, in fact.
As a good Communist, it is my duty in this situation to humble myself before others in a self criticism session.
Sulfite is a MONOvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Sulfate is a TRIvalent oxyanion, not divalent.
Whatever tiny shred of credibility I had left is gone now.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition Gestapo missed the reverse sting operation.
sealover wrote:
I made an error about the chemistry that could have been legitimately criticized.
I pointed out that error and "corrected" it with a new error.
This time, there should have been no missing it. It was offered as bait.
You can't bait with a fake hook.
sealover wrote:
I will continue to use the same terms that everyone else uses in their scientific papers.
Science isn't papers. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
This does not mean that I speak for everyone. We just speak the same language.
Who is 'we'. You do not get to speak for anyone else but yourself. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Part of that language is chemistry.
Chemistry isn't a language.
sealover wrote:
Whether or not an ion is trivalent or divalent matters. But only if someone knows what the terms mean.
Strawman fallacy. Irrelevant.
sealover wrote:
I have never been to a scientific conference where anyone demanded that someone else define their terms.
Science isn't a conference. Define your terms.
sealover wrote:
Nor have I participated in any discussion among members of the scientific community where anyone resorted to personal insults and accusations of nefarious hidden agendas.
Science isn't a community. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
It seems like pure evasion to insist that every word be challenged for a definition.
Since you do not to define any of the buzzwords you are using, the only losing out is YOU.
sealover wrote:
It seems like anyone who pays attention to the chemistry
You are talking about chemistry. Chemistry isn't buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
and understands it would have seized upon the opening offered to point out my error.
RQAA (Repetitive Question Already Answered).
sealover wrote:
Well, given that they are so committed to proving me wrong that they resort to personal insults.
Whining isn't going to help you.
sealover wrote:
Why not show everyone where the science is wrong instead of just killing the messenger?
You deny science. Science is neither right or wrong. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove any theory True.
sealover wrote:
Well, that would require some actual understanding of science.
You deny science. You are describing yourself. Inversion 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 |
|
| RE: some people think chemistry IS my strength11-03-2022 04:17 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
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.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I have typed on this website are my own words.
Most people with scientific training find my explanations to be clear and concise.
I look forward to being joined by others who do not find it to be gibber-babble. |
| 11-03-2022 04:37 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:Most people with scientific training find my explanations to be clear and concise.
Are you pointing to other people's opinions as validation of your gibberish as "science"? Is that what you are doing? Are you presuming that science is subjective and determined by a general consensus of opinions?
How many "Yea!" votes are required to transform an idea into bona fide science, in your opinion?
sealover wrote:I look forward to being joined by others who [in their subjective opinions declare it to be science]] .
You still don't know what science is. Ask me how I know.
. |
| 11-03-2022 06:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I have typed on this website are my own words.
Okay. So they are your very own buzzwords. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
Most people with scientific training find my explanations to be clear and concise.
Science isn't training. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are not explaining anything. You are just spewing meaningless buzzwords. Until you define them, that's all they are going to remain.
sealover wrote:
I look forward to being joined by others who do not find it to be gibber-babble.
Yes. The camaraderie is very important in religions. That includes the Church of Global Warming, fundamentalist as it is.
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 naked truth about alkalinity12-03-2022 09:08 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.
No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.
So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Google sulfate reduction.
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
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. |
| 12-03-2022 18:17 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree.
Google "defining one's terms" |
| 12-03-2022 20:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.
No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.
So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Nope. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Google sulfate reduction.
Google is not God. It is not chemistry either.
sealover wrote:
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Pyrite has no arsenic.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
The word 'oxidize' is not used in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Google is not God, science, or chemistry, or a source. False authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
So?
sealover wrote:
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles.
sealover wrote:
Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.
Denial of acid-base chemistry. An alkaline is not protons.
sealover wrote:
Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.
Science isn't a government agency.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in grams or moles.
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: please tell us units for alkalinity12-03-2022 22:20 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.
No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.
So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Nope. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Google sulfate reduction.
Google is not God. It is not chemistry either.
sealover wrote:
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Pyrite has no arsenic.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
The word 'oxidize' is not used in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Google is not God, science, or chemistry, or a source. False authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
So?
sealover wrote:
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles.
sealover wrote:
Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.
Denial of acid-base chemistry. An alkaline is not protons.
sealover wrote:
Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.
Science isn't a government agency.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in grams or moles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit error?
If alkalinity is not "measured" in grams or moles... well, you're right.
There are many different ways to measure it.
The question is, what are the units used to report it?
How do all those people who don't know how to properly tear sentences apart measure and report alkalinity?
Do they even use "units"? |
| 13-03-2022 02:59 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:The question is, what are the units used to report it?
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium)
}
To IBDaMann:
Peanut butter has a pH of 6.3, making my chicken acidic. |
| RE: Aren't you any good at math?14-03-2022 08:55 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:The question is, what are the units used to report it?
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium)
}
To IBDaMann:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you any good at math?
Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?
If you're any good at math you can tell me to a couple of decimal places exactly how much LESS THAN ZERO pH is.
We'll compare numbers and check each other's work.
Aren't you any good at math? |
| RE: The carbonate buffer system 5-way equilbria14-03-2022 09:21 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
The 5-way Equilibria of the Ocean's Carbonate Buffer System
meet the players:
carbon dioxide, a gas that can dissolve in water or evolve from water
carbonic acid, a weak acid dissolved in water
bicarbonate, a monovalent oxyanion, dissolved in water
carbonate, a divalent oxyanion, dissolve in water
calcium carbonate, a solid salt, precipitating from or dissolving into water
They all influence each other.
A change just at one end will have cascading effects across to the other.
For example, just by increasing the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide, a decrease in dissolved carbonate ion will occur.
Four different equilibria in simultaneously in play between five different players.
The math is complicated, but I can help guide you through it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.
So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Google sulfate reduction.
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
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. |
|
| 14-03-2022 10:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.
No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.
So you CAN repeat what I say. Very good.
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.
Nope. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Google sulfate reduction.
Google is not God. It is not chemistry either.
sealover wrote:
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Pyrite has no arsenic.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
The word 'oxidize' is not used in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Google is not God, science, or chemistry, or a source. False authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
So?
sealover wrote:
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles.
sealover wrote:
Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.
Denial of acid-base chemistry. An alkaline is not protons.
sealover wrote:
Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.
Science isn't a government agency.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in grams or moles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit error?
If alkalinity is not "measured" in grams or moles... well, you're right.
There are many different ways to measure it.
The question is, what are the units used to report it?
How do all those people who don't know how to properly tear sentences apart measure and report alkalinity?
Do they even use "units"?
Since you completely ignore acid-base chemistry you can't even see why your tirade wanders into unit errors.
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 |
| 14-03-2022 10:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
The 5-way Equilibria of the Ocean's Carbonate Buffer System
meet the players:
carbon dioxide, a gas that can dissolve in water or evolve from water
carbonic acid, a weak acid dissolved in water
bicarbonate, a monovalent oxyanion, dissolved in water
carbonate, a divalent oxyanion, dissolve in water
calcium carbonate, a solid salt, precipitating from or dissolving into water
They all influence each other.
Nope. None are in saturation.
sealover wrote:
A change just at one end will have cascading effects across to the other.
Nope. None are in saturation.
sealover wrote:
For example, just by increasing the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide, a decrease in dissolved carbonate ion will occur.
Nope. None are in saturation. You still don't get the idea behind what a buffer is, do you?
sealover wrote:
Four different equilibria in simultaneously in play between five different players.
Do you call it the battle of the five armies?
sealover wrote:
The math is complicated, but I can help guide you through it.
Appeal to complexity fallacy. Condescending bullshit.
I think it's time I break out my numbered mantras with you.
Mantras r1..r5...6...
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 |
| 14-03-2022 21:13 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}
Aren't you any good at math? Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?
Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644
Run the code, dipsh't. |
| RE: So you needed to run a code?14-03-2022 22:29 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}
Aren't you any good at math? Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?
Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644
Run the code, dipsh't.
--------------------------------------------------
I suggested that you should be able to calculate the pH to two decimal places.
That's because I thought you possibly understood enough math to do the calculation yourself.
I would have only been able to calculate the pH at -0.41
I'm glad you know where to find those codes at least. |
| 14-03-2022 22:41 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:I would have only been able to calculate the pH at -0.41
I'm glad you know where to find those codes at least.
I didn't "find" the code anywhere. I wrote it for you. I used the Eclipse IDE. You can download it for free and you can have the computer do all your pH computations with the code I posted.
Edited on 14-03-2022 22:43 |
| RE: check the code for alkalinity units14-03-2022 22:46 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}
Aren't you any good at math? Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?
Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644
Run the code, dipsh't.
------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the idea was to use the equation from the chemistry textbook and calculate it yourself.
I didn't even know there was a "code" you could access off the Internet.
But it offers an opportunity.
I'll bet there are "codes" out there for alkalinity calculations.
I'll bet you could even see what the units are that real scientists use for it. |
| 14-03-2022 22:54 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:I didn't even know there was a "code" you could access off the Internet.
There wasn't, until I wrote it and posted it on Climate-Debate for you.
sealover wrote:But it offers an opportunity.I'll bet there are "codes" out there for alkalinity calculations.
Do you need me to write one of those for you too?
Tell me which equation you want and I'll write it for you.
I'm standing by. |
| RE: "Unit error"15-03-2022 00:05 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I didn't even know there was a "code" you could access off the Internet.
There wasn't, until I wrote it and posted it on Climate-Debate for you.
sealover wrote:But it offers an opportunity.I'll bet there are "codes" out there for alkalinity calculations.
Do you need me to write one of those for you too?
Tell me which equation you want and I'll write it for you.
I'm standing by.
------------------------------------------------------------
I've got the equations.
Do YOU have the UNITS?
"Unit error" was the repeated reply whenever it was suggested that alkalinity might be reported as anything other than "pH".
To try to quantify alkalinity in any terms of pH would be "unit error".
Do you understand the basic concept of alkalinity enough to even know how it is reported? |
| 15-03-2022 00:15 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote: I've got the equations.
[blah, blah, blah ...] Do you understand the basic concept of alkalinity enough to even know how it is reported?
OK ... now post those equations ... |
| RE: You would do well to learn chemistry15-03-2022 04:28 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.
I haven't finished building my nest yet, so it's too soon to invite anyone to the housewarming party.
Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
At this point, I can just ignore the hecklers and bullies.
I can just keep quoting the absurd things they already said to me for the introduction of each science lesson. |
| 15-03-2022 05:24 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
Meanwhile, you can aspire to post some science. Of course, you'd have to avoid meaningless buzzwords and define your terms, something you have not yet been able to do.
sealover wrote:At this point, I can just ignore the helpers, the calls to define my terms and the requests for clarification.
Yes, you can certainly do that.
Do you have those equations yet? |
| 15-03-2022 06:07 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
Meanwhile, you can aspire to post some science. Of course, you'd have to avoid meaningless buzzwords and define your terms, something you have not yet been able to do.
sealover wrote:At this point, I can just ignore the helpers, the calls to define my terms and the requests for clarification.
Yes, you can certainly do that.
Do you have those equations yet?
I suspect that you either flunked out or dropped out of college because you didn't have the aptitude for the kind of chemistry classes that I taught. |
| 15-03-2022 06:17 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:I suspect that you either flunked out or dropped out of college because I can't think of an excuse for not being able to give you the equations I had mentioned previously.
I realize that all of your shortcomings must somehow be my fault. I don't know what I was thinking.
If you have a link to the equations of which you spoke, we could try that. |
| 15-03-2022 10:36 |
duncan61★★★★★
(2021) |
Sealover.Can you go test the ocean PH where you live or do you reside in Austria or Switzerland.Its still 8.3PH at Trigg and CO2 is 407ppm in my Garden.Regards Duncan |
| 15-03-2022 19:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.
I haven't finished building my nest yet, so it's too soon to invite anyone to the housewarming party.
Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
I can't limit your posts. Only YOU or the forum administrator can do that. BTW, if your posts were limited only to presentations of science, there would be no posts from you.
sealover wrote:
At this point, I can just ignore the hecklers and bullies.
So you want to be the only bully here, yes?
sealover wrote:
I can just keep quoting the absurd things they already said to me for the introduction of each science lesson.
What science lesson?
Science isn't lessons. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
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 |
|
| 15-03-2022 19:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
Meanwhile, you can aspire to post some science. Of course, you'd have to avoid meaningless buzzwords and define your terms, something you have not yet been able to do.
sealover wrote:At this point, I can just ignore the helpers, the calls to define my terms and the requests for clarification.
Yes, you can certainly do that.
Do you have those equations yet?
I suspect that you either flunked out or dropped out of college because you didn't have the aptitude for the kind of chemistry classes that I taught.
You deny chemistry. Stop making up shit about yourself.
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: Run! The Warmizombies are coming!15-03-2022 21:43 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.
I haven't finished building my nest yet, so it's too soon to invite anyone to the housewarming party.
Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
I can't limit your posts. Only YOU or the forum administrator can do that. BTW, if your posts were limited only to presentations of science, there would be no posts from you.
sealover wrote:
At this point, I can just ignore the hecklers and bullies.
So you want to be the only bully here, yes?
sealover wrote:
I can just keep quoting the absurd things they already said to me for the introduction of each science lesson.
What science lesson?
Science isn't lessons. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy it while you still can.
One of these days you are going to log in and discover that this site has been overrun by the WARMIZOMBIES.
They might not feel obliged to provide "unambiguous definitions" for words that they and just about everyone else already understand.
They may not accept censorship of their "buzzwords".
They might just ignore ya'll and have their own discussion! Using BUZZWORDS!
And FALLACIES! And LIES! LIES. Lies. And more lies.
Enjoy it while you still can. |
| 16-03-2022 01:10 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.
You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.
I haven't finished building my nest yet, so it's too soon to invite anyone to the housewarming party.
Meanwhile, I can just limit my posts to presentations of science.
I can't limit your posts. Only YOU or the forum administrator can do that. BTW, if your posts were limited only to presentations of science, there would be no posts from you.
sealover wrote:
At this point, I can just ignore the hecklers and bullies.
So you want to be the only bully here, yes?
sealover wrote:
I can just keep quoting the absurd things they already said to me for the introduction of each science lesson.
What science lesson?
Science isn't lessons. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy it while you still can.
One of these days you are going to log in and discover that this site has been overrun by the WARMIZOMBIES.
It's happened before here.
sealover wrote:
They might not feel obliged to provide "unambiguous definitions" for words that they and just about everyone else already understand.
And, like usual, they will be talking about nothing as a result.
sealover wrote:
They may not accept censorship of their "buzzwords".
No one is censoring your buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
They might just ignore ya'll and have their own discussion! Using BUZZWORDS!
So they talk about nothing again. Nothing new.
sealover wrote:
And FALLACIES! And LIES! LIES. Lies. And more lies.
Enjoy it while you still can.
I don't think you realize that the Church of Global Warming is failing. More and more people are seeing through your bullshit.
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: You are right. Two new threads needed16-03-2022 04:29 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
You are right. Two more threads are needed.
one to clarify acid-base chemistry
one to clarify oxidation-reduction chemistry.
Two many gems to work with in the underlying post.
"There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry."
"Denial of acid-base chemistry. An alkaline is not protons."
"You cannot 'generate' alkalinity"
"Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot."
Yes, two new threads.
One about acid-base chemistry. Not from an ecological perspective. Just a good clear explanation of the chemistry.
Same for oxidation-reduction chemistry.
I'll try to limit the total number of threads I start to about a baker's dozen.
I anticipate that those 13 threads will continue for years.
That will be my little niche here.
Now, you might want to consider that a whole lot more people will view these posts in the future.
You don't want your most important legacy as a "scientist" to be that chemistry students were guided to this website, and saw your absurd "scientific" assertions at the beginning of every lesson.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.
No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.
Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.[/quote]
sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.[/quote]
Carbonate is not a system.
sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.
Nope. Just two.
sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?
HCO3. Typically a forms a salt such as NaHCO3.
sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)
It doesn't. It is a transition from one to the other.
sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.
Like I said. Take my advice. Go learn chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.
The ignorance is yours.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.
Nope. Pyrite forms when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate, turning it into a sulfide. Pyrite is FeS2.
sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.
You cannot 'generate' alkalinity'.
sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.
Wups. No hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.
No. You made it up. Pyrite is a stable material. It doesn't naturally decompose. Like I said, it occurs pretty much everywhere. People used to use it in wheelock guns as a spark generator.
sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.
sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.
Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.
sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.
The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.
There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.
Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.
Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.
Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.
sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.
Groundwater is not a discharge.
sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.
Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can reduce a sulfate.[/quote]
Nope. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Google sulfate reduction.
Google is not God. It is not chemistry either.
sealover wrote:
Yes, arsenian pyrite is a real thing. Google it.
Pyrite has no arsenic.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite can form sulfuric acid when bacteria use oxygen to oxidize it.
The word 'oxidize' is not used in chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Google pyrite oxidation acid mine drainage.
Google is not God, science, or chemistry, or a source. False authority fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Yes, pyrite does form when bacteria deoxidize a sulfate turning it into a sulfide.
So?
sealover wrote:
Its just a really awkward way to say sulfate reduction. It affirms rather than contradicts.
You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.
sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates two moles of alkalinity for every mole of carbon oxidized (or should I say dereduced?)
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles.
sealover wrote:
Scientists report alkalinity as moles of acid neutralizing capacity per liter.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
Moles of protons per liter that could be neutralized.
Denial of acid-base chemistry. An alkaline is not protons.
sealover wrote:
Environmental regulators report alkalinity as calcium carbonate equivalents per liter, on a weight basis.
Science isn't a government agency.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error.
sealover wrote:
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.
Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in grams or moles.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit error?
If alkalinity is not "measured" in grams or moles... well, you're right.
There are many different ways to measure it.
The question is, what are the units used to report it?
How do all those people who don't know how to properly tear sentences apart measure and report alkalinity?
Do they even use "units"?[/quote] |
| 16-03-2022 06:01 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14390) |
sealover wrote:You are right. Two more threads are needed.
To go along with the threads, we need some Java code with those important equations that you said were importantly important. I'm ready to code them up; you haven't told me what they are, but I'm certain you should have them to facilitate the kind of calculations you'll want to discuss in your new threads, right?
Edited on 16-03-2022 06:02 |
| RE: what equations?16-03-2022 14:37 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I suspect that you either flunked out or dropped out of college because I can't think of an excuse for not being able to give you the equations I had mentioned previously.
I realize that all of your shortcomings must somehow be my fault. I don't know what I was thinking.
If you have a link to the equations of which you spoke, we could try that.
----------------------------------------------------------
What equations? |
| 16-03-2022 20:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I suspect that you either flunked out or dropped out of college because I can't think of an excuse for not being able to give you the equations I had mentioned previously.
I realize that all of your shortcomings must somehow be my fault. I don't know what I was thinking.
If you have a link to the equations of which you spoke, we could try that.
----------------------------------------------------------
What equations?
The ones you spoke of, dumbass.
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: if you only understood science...16-03-2022 20:10 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
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. [/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. |
| 16-03-2022 20:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
sealover wrote:
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.
Criticizing yourself now?
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 16-03-2022 20:54 |
| RE: Technically, this is libel20-03-2022 06:33 |
sealover★★★★☆
(1245) |
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.
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. |
