Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 11 of 11<<<91011
30-11-2023 13:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5736)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?


Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
You were not alive 20,000 years ago to attempt to measure anything. There is no record from 20,000 years ago.


So you are making the claim that the Earth is as it always has been and never changes.

LOL

How do we know about past ice ages?
Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.

Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.

Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth's two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.


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
01-12-2023 04:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: The northern California coastline is rising faster than sea level,

* Why should any rational adult believe that sea level is somehow rising?
* Are you a rational adult?
* How can one area of a body of water rise faster than another part?
* Why should any rational adult believe that the sea level ever "rose"?


Sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
It is not possible to measure global sea level.
You were not alive 20,000 years ago to attempt to measure anything. There is no record from 20,000 years ago.


So you are making the claim that the Earth is as it always has been and never changes.
Never said any such thing.
Swan wrote:
How do we know about past ice ages?
You don't.
Swan wrote:
Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.
Not science. Speculation and religion.
Swan wrote:
Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate.
There is no such thing as a global climate.
Swan wrote:
Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.
There is no such thing as a 'climate record'. Climate has no values.
Swan wrote:
Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth's two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.

There is no such thing as a global climate or a 'climate record'.


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: within minutes of this very first post20-12-2023 00:18
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

In the low-oxygen, organic carbon-rich wetland sediment, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to acquire energy from organic carbon. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized (inorganic) carbon product.

Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

As only one file can be attached, let's start with a good one.



This was my very first post, a year and a half ago.

Within minutes, the first anti scientific response was posted.
RE: first response - excellent abstract and weird interpretation20-12-2023 00:23
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file


I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N
values above the Redfield ratio
). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.


A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?





An excellent abstract about submarine groundwater discharge was posted, without providing a title, author, source.. and very strangely highlighted.

It appears that the reference to low oxygen conditions that permit sulfate reduction in wetland sediments was misinterpreted as a reference to open water "dead zones" where low oxygen conditions are created in response to excess fertilizer runoff.
RE: "alkaline neutralizing capacity"?20-12-2023 02:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
IBdaMann wrote:
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?





This excellent abstract even includes the source.

But it doesn't include the nonsense term "alkaline neutralizing capacity".

Someone who understands chemistry could learn a lot about alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity) if they read this paper.

Someone who claims that the paper confirms the validity or existence of the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity" didn't read it and just wants to play anti scientific word games.
RE: IR Santos et al paper20-12-2023 09:14
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file


I'll attach the abstract. The parts in red are just boolsch't. The underlined phrases are the calls for greater funding and greater government control while downplaying any need to provide specifics.

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N
values above the Redfield ratio
). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.


A casual glance will reveal that this document is intended to say absolutely nothing while filling the mandatory quota of white space with text. The thesis statement, i.e. that greater funding and control are required in this area, is pushed by fear, of course. This document seeks to engender a panic surrounding the flourishing of plants and algaes that might happen if this funding and control are not increased per this alarm warning. Did you catch that? The threat is possible "eutrophication", i.e. that plants and algaes might flourish.

sealover, the first line of the abstract says that SGD links terrestrial and marine systems. Does that mean that SGD links Army tactical vehicles to Navy aircraft carriers? ... or does it link terrestrial data centers with ocean drilling platforms?




This was one of the first responses to my very first post.

It begins with an unsourced cut and past abstract of perfectly valid science.

This is followed by bizarre anti scientific analysis from the dominant troll.

"This document seeks to engender panic.."

The "scientific" analysis is purely political, if not simply delusional.

However, the abstract contains something the fills me with pride.

It mentions that "..ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen.." were the main forms of nitrogen in submarine groundwater discharge.

A search of scientific papers reveals that prior to 1995, the term "dissolved organic nitrogen" appears in the title of just three papers.

One of them was my own, "Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation..." (1994, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis).

We developed a new method to measure dissolved organic nitrogen because the classic Kjeldahl digest was too cumbersome, slow, dangerous, and inaccurate.

But dissolved organic nitrogen didn't really get much attention until after 1995.

That was the year I published the paper in the journal Nature.

The first sentence was:

"The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

The same issue of Nature (1995) includes a review article about the significance of my paper:

"New cog in the nitrogen cycle". (easy to look up with just those words)

Before that, virtually nobody was even trying to measure dissolved organic nitrogen in waters (soil water, ground water, surface water)

They knew that it existed as a theoretical component, but assumed it was negligible.

It is now standard fare to include measure of dissolved organic nitrogen, in addition to nitrate, ammonium, and sometimes nitrite, in water samples.

Otherwise they miss what is often a major component of the total nitrogen.

So, I am very proud of this contribution I made to real world science.

Persulfate oxidation has also now largely replaced the Kjeldahl digest to measure organic nitrogen. Something else I am proud of.

But I am MOST proud that OTHER discoveries I published are frequently cited in newer work related to climate change.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols (tannins) for sequestration of carbon into stable organic matter with very long mean residence time in soil.

For example, the importance of plant polyphenols for minimizing the emission of nitrous oxide, a very powerful greenhouse gas.

For example, the importance of plant mycorrhizal associations for facilitating the sequestration of carbon and minimizing nitrous oxide emissions.

None of the local trolls displayed any interest



The abstract at the top did not include title, author name, or other reference.

But a Google search of just the first sentence of the abstract is enough to find it.


Santos, IR, et al. 2021. Submarine groundwater discharge impacts on coastal nutrient biogeochemistry. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment.



I like the fact that "biogeochemistry" is in the title.
RE: Hydrogen ions are protons29-04-2024 19:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
All acid neutralizing capacity from oxyanions of acids
Acid base chemistry back to the basics.
Acid is opposite of alkaline.
Acid things push protons into solution, lowering pH.
Alkaline things neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Alkalinity is the capacity to neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Virtually all the world's alkalinity is derived from oxyanions.
Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion of inorganic carbon.
The acid neutralizaton is the protonation of an oxyanion. The divalent (two negative charges per ion) oxyanion, is the fully deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid known as carbonic acid.
Hydroxide is an oxyanion. OH- . Monovalent oxyanion.
Sulfate is an oxyanion, divalent, and it is the fully deprotonated form of the strongly acidic acid known as sulfuric acid.
Acetate is a monovalent oxyanion, the deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid, acetic acid (vinegar).
What they all have in common is the importance of a proton coming off or going on to an oxygen atom.
Acid neutralizing capacity is all about the oxyanions.

Buzzword fallacies. A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.

Denial of acid-base chemistry. Confusion of nuclear reaction vs chemical reaction. Fixation on irrelevance. Spamming. No argument presented.


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

"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."


This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom. It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry. And biogeochemistry.

Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.
29-04-2024 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
This was my very first post, a year and a half ago.

Within minutes, the first anti scientific response was posted.

Your post is not science. You deny and discard science.


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
29-04-2024 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
An excellent abstract about submarine groundwater discharge was posted, without providing a title, author, source.. and very strangely highlighted.

It appears that the reference to low oxygen conditions that permit sulfate reduction in wetland sediments was misinterpreted as a reference to open water "dead zones" where low oxygen conditions are created in response to excess fertilizer runoff.

Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'.


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
29-04-2024 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
This excellent abstract even includes the source.

But it doesn't include the nonsense term "alkaline neutralizing capacity".

Someone who understands chemistry could learn a lot about alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity) if they read this paper.

Someone who claims that the paper confirms the validity or existence of the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity" didn't read it and just wants to play anti scientific word games.

There is no such thing as alkalinity.
You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.


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
29-04-2024 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
I like the fact that "biogeochemistry" is in the title.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' except as a religious artifact.


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
29-04-2024 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."

This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

Chemistry is not a high school. High schools do not mess with nuclear reactions.
sealover wrote:
When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

Removing a proton from oxygen turns it into nitrogen. This is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.
sealover wrote:
H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

Not correct.
sealover wrote:
The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

Which is it, dude?
sealover wrote:
It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

You cannot deny your own posts.
sealover wrote:
But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry.

This thread is not about chemistry.
sealover wrote:
And biogeochemistry.

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problem onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.

Mantra 1a.


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: parrot poop posts waste space29-04-2024 21:49
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
So much wasted thread space.

A psychiatrist would have fun analyzing them.

A scientist can see immediately that they are anti scientific.

Protonation and deprotonation are the most important things that an acid or its association anion do in chemistry.

Alkalinity is about protonation of oxyanions to make them into weak acids that don't dissociate at ambient pH.

Free protons (hydrogen ions) are what are measured as pH.

If that free proton goes and protonates an oxyanion, it is no longer present in solution, and the pH rises.

The oxyanion is no longer present in solution either, having been protonated to become a weak acid.

H+ + HCO3- = H2CO3 proton plus bicarbonate ion to make carbonic acid.

It kind of sucks that the only way to find anything useful on this website requires scrolling past a bunch of parrot poop posts.

But they are easy to spot, with the red parrot picture.

They are often tediously long, and always pointless.

And they usually come in clusters of five or ten, so it is possible to scroll past them quickly, just watching to see when the red parrot pictures stop
30-04-2024 02:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
So much wasted thread space.

Whiner. You are complaining about the thread space you waste now?
Im a BM wrote:
A psychiatrist would have fun analyzing them.

Psychoquackery.
Im a BM wrote:
A scientist can see immediately that they are anti scientific.

Science it not a scientist. It is YOU denying science. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else, Sock.
Im a BM wrote:
Protonation and deprotonation are the most important things that an acid or its association anion do in chemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. No such words.
Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity is about protonation of oxyanions to make them into weak acids that don't dissociate at ambient pH.

Buzzword fallacies. No such words.
Im a BM wrote:
Free protons (hydrogen ions) are what are measured as pH.

I suggest you go figure out pH is measured at all.
Im a BM wrote:
If that free proton goes and protonates an oxyanion, it is no longer present in solution, and the pH rises.

No such words. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
The oxyanion is no longer present in solution either, having been protonated to become a weak acid.

No such words. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
H+ + HCO3- = H2CO3 proton plus bicarbonate ion to make carbonic acid.

There is no such chemical as 'proton'. There is no such chemical as 'bicarbonate'.
Im a BM wrote:
It kind of sucks that the only way to find anything useful on this website requires scrolling past a bunch of parrot poop posts.

But they are easy to spot, with the red parrot picture.

They are often tediously long, and always pointless.

And they usually come in clusters of five or ten, so it is possible to scroll past them quickly, just watching to see when the red parrot pictures stop

Bulverism fallacy.
You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.


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: "Proton" is part of definition of an acid30-04-2024 19:33
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
from Oxford Languages dictionaries.

Acid

noun

1. (laymen's definition)

2. CHEMISTRY
a molecule or other entity that can donate a proton or accept an electron pair in reactions.



They might have said "hydrogen ion" rather than "proton".

However, they correctly used the term more often used by chemists ("proton")
30-04-2024 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
from Oxford Languages dictionaries.
...deleted spam...

No dictionary defines any word, Sock.


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
30-04-2024 20:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14630)
sealover wrote: from Oxford Languages dictionaries.

Too funny! We have another Bozo who thinks that dictionaries are textbooks.

Where's the "sour taste" in your usage example? How is anyone supposed to discern correct usages from incorrect usages? You only cite a dictionary because you have no idea that it isn't a chemistry textbook. You have no idea whether it is correct or incorrect. You have no idea what science even is. You make up crap as you go along.

You're long overdue for your next whining fit over having doxxed yourself ... just letting you know.

sealover wrote: They might have said "hydrogen ion" rather than "proton".

"They" could have mentioned the sour taste, but they didn't. How do you not know that limes are sour? Alas, you said nothing; you simply regurgitated the first thing you read on the internet.

sealover wrote: However, they correctly used the term more often used by chemists ("proton")

Cool, you've at least heard of a proton. Awesome!
RE: also because "hydrogen" is already in too many terms30-04-2024 22:03
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
sealover wrote:
from Oxford Languages dictionaries.

Acid

noun

1. (laymen's definition)

2. CHEMISTRY
a molecule or other entity that can donate a proton or accept an electron pair in reactions.



They might have said "hydrogen ion" rather than "proton".

However, they correctly used the term more often used by chemists ("proton")


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

Why do chemists prefer to refer to H+ as "proton" rather than "hydrogen ion"?

One reason is that "hydrogen" is already part of so many terms.

For example, "hydrogenate" and "dehydrogenate" already refer to chemical reactions unrelated to the hydrogen ion.

So, they say "protonate" and "deprotonate" to make it clear what they mean when they describe acid base reactions.

Anyone who studies chemistry in the real world learns these things during their first, introductory course.
30-04-2024 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
Why do chemists prefer to refer to H+ as "proton" rather than "hydrogen ion"?

One reason is that "hydrogen" is already part of so many terms.

For example, "hydrogenate" and "dehydrogenate" already refer to chemical reactions unrelated to the hydrogen ion.

So, they say "protonate" and "deprotonate" to make it clear what they mean when they describe acid base reactions.

Anyone who studies chemistry in the real world learns these things during their first, introductory course.

Buzzword fallacies (protonate, deprotonate, hydrogenate, dehydrogenate). A proton is not a chemical. Redefinition fallacy. Hydrogen is not an acid.


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 30-04-2024 22:41
RE: "Nope. It means a proton and nothing else."02-05-2024 05:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)" - PhD biogeochemist

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy" - resident science expert



Technical point: a hydrogen atom is composed of one proton and one electron.

If the electron is removed, it becomes a hydrogen ion, or simply a proton.

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


Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."

This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

Chemistry is not a high school. High schools do not mess with nuclear reactions.
sealover wrote:
When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

Removing a proton from oxygen turns it into nitrogen. This is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.
sealover wrote:
H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

Not correct.
sealover wrote:
The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

Which is it, dude?
sealover wrote:
It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

You cannot deny your own posts.
sealover wrote:
But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry.

This thread is not about chemistry.
sealover wrote:
And biogeochemistry.

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problem onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.

Mantra 1a.
02-05-2024 09:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)" - PhD biogeochemist

There is no such thing as a biogeochemist.
Science is not a degree or buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy" - resident science expert

One of several here. You're not one of them.
Im a BM wrote:
Technical point: a hydrogen atom is composed of one proton and one electron.

If the electron is removed, it becomes a hydrogen ion, or simply a proton.

Nope. It's a proton. It is no longer hydrogen.

A proton is not an atom.


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: STILL doesn't know what "proton" means02-05-2024 17:41
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
STILL doesn't know what "proton" means in chemistry...

Some trolls are just unteachable.

-----------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)" - PhD biogeochemist

There is no such thing as a biogeochemist.
Science is not a degree or buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy" - resident science expert

One of several here. You're not one of them.
Im a BM wrote:
Technical point: a hydrogen atom is composed of one proton and one electron.

If the electron is removed, it becomes a hydrogen ion, or simply a proton.

Nope. It's a proton. It is no longer hydrogen.

A proton is not an atom.
02-05-2024 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
STILL doesn't know what "proton" means in chemistry...

You are describing yourself again.
sealover wrote:
Some trolls are just unteachable.

I agree, troll.


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 genius greased pig03-05-2024 01:45
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
The perfectly correct assertion was made:

"If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH"


Straightforward chemistry about how little buffering capacity pure water has.

The identified parameter was pH. (..huge drop in pH).

So the cat and urine feces guy needs to correct it, along with insults.

"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."


Again, identifying pH as the only parameter of interest.

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what is scientifically correct.

The "impact" on the sea water is FAR LESS "pronounced".

And this was done as an unsolicited "correct answer".

Pretty friggin' ARROGANT to pretend to be a "resident science expert"

Doesn't even comprehend the most basic pH buffering concept.

It also includes the unforced error of invoking "some magical acid whose pH is 0.0"

Doesn't know enough about pH to know that an acid can have pH BELOW 0.0

After he figures out to deal with his cat urine and feces issues, I hope he'll realize that his bluff is only effective on threads where equally uneducated trolls pretend to understand "thermodynamics".

This chemistry stuff is just way too far out of his league.

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.."
write this kind of idiocy, claiming that sea water is less buffered against pH change than pure water.
-----------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.

So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.

Do the math.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
03-05-2024 02:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
The perfectly correct assertion was made:

"If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH"

No, you won't.
sealover wrote:
Straightforward chemistry about how little buffering capacity pure water has.

You obviously have no idea what buffering is.
sealover wrote:
The identified parameter was pH. (..huge drop in pH).

Repetition fallacy.
sealover wrote:
So the cat and urine feces guy needs to correct it, along with insults.

Correct what? Your errors? He already did.
sealover wrote:

"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."


Again, identifying pH as the only parameter of interest.

Nope. It will be more pronounced on sea water.
sealover wrote:
This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what is scientifically correct.

Wrong. You still have no idea what buffering is.
sealover wrote:
The "impact" on the sea water is FAR LESS "pronounced".

Nope. More pronounced.
sealover wrote:
And this was done as an unsolicited "correct answer".

Pretty friggin' ARROGANT to pretend to be a "resident science expert"

You cannot project YOUR problem on IBDaMann or anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Doesn't even comprehend the most basic pH buffering concept.

You are describing yourself again.
sealover wrote:
It also includes the unforced error of invoking "some magical acid whose pH is 0.0"

Doesn't know enough about pH to know that an acid can have pH BELOW 0.0

Science isn't magick.
sealover wrote:
After he figures out to deal with his cat urine and feces issues, I hope he'll realize that his bluff is only effective on threads where equally uneducated trolls pretend to understand "thermodynamics".

You are describing yourself again.
sealover wrote:
This chemistry stuff is just way too far out of his league.

You are describing yourself again.
sealover wrote:

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.."
write this kind of idiocy, claiming that sea water is less buffered against pH change than pure water.

Again you deny acid/base chemistry.

This is YOUR problem. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else, Sock.


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: hoping to get back on topic04-05-2024 02:20
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
The self identified "resident science experts" agree.

Sea water is less buffered than pure water against pH change upon acid addition.

"...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water."

Of course, this is ABSURD.

Hoping to get back on topic.

Hoping that those who have no knowledge of chemistry, nor any genuine interest in the thread topic, will resist the temptation to display their ignorance again.

There are plenty of threads where they can pretend to understand "thermodynamics" and discuss whether or not climate change is even theoretically possible.

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

sealover wrote:
The perfectly correct assertion was made:

"If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH"


Straightforward chemistry about how little buffering capacity pure water has.

The identified parameter was pH. (..huge drop in pH).

So the cat and urine feces guy needs to correct it, along with insults.

"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."


Again, identifying pH as the only parameter of interest.

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what is scientifically correct.

The "impact" on the sea water is FAR LESS "pronounced".

And this was done as an unsolicited "correct answer".

Pretty friggin' ARROGANT to pretend to be a "resident science expert"

Doesn't even comprehend the most basic pH buffering concept.

It also includes the unforced error of invoking "some magical acid whose pH is 0.0"

Doesn't know enough about pH to know that an acid can have pH BELOW 0.0

After he figures out to deal with his cat urine and feces issues, I hope he'll realize that his bluff is only effective on threads where equally uneducated trolls pretend to understand "thermodynamics".

This chemistry stuff is just way too far out of his league.

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.."
write this kind of idiocy, claiming that sea water is less buffered against pH change than pure water.
-----------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.

So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water.

Do the math.

sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea.

That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory!

sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity.

Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity.

Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion.

sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions.

Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space.

sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too.

sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH.

That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion.

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?
04-05-2024 07:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
The self identified "resident science experts" agree.

Sea water is less buffered than pure water against pH change upon acid addition.

"...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water."

Of course, this is ABSURD.

Science isn't an 'expert'.
Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water.
Im a BM wrote:
Hoping to get back on topic.

You aren't discussing any topic.
Im a BM wrote:
Hoping that those who have no knowledge of chemistry, nor any genuine interest in the thread topic, will resist the temptation to display their ignorance again.

Too late. You already display your lack of knowledge of chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
There are plenty of threads where they can pretend to understand "thermodynamics" and discuss whether or not climate change is even theoretically possible.

Climate cannot change.
You are describing yourself. YOU are pretending to understand thermodynamics.


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: Again, with pH as the identified parameter04-05-2024 17:19
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
Again, with pH as the identified parameter.

The ONLY identified parameter.

"...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

"Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water." - Into the Night

These guys are just OOZING with scientific credibility!

Who could possibly be more qualified to tell someone else that

"You already display your lack of knowledge of chemistry" - ITN

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

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The self identified "resident science experts" agree.

Sea water is less buffered than pure water against pH change upon acid addition.

"...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water."

Of course, this is ABSURD.

Science isn't an 'expert'.
Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water.
Im a BM wrote:
Hoping to get back on topic.

You aren't discussing any topic.
Im a BM wrote:
Hoping that those who have no knowledge of chemistry, nor any genuine interest in the thread topic, will resist the temptation to display their ignorance again.

Too late. You already display your lack of knowledge of chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
There are plenty of threads where they can pretend to understand "thermodynamics" and discuss whether or not climate change is even theoretically possible.

Climate cannot change.
You are describing yourself. YOU are pretending to understand thermodynamics.
04-05-2024 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
Again, with pH as the identified parameter.

No, it isn't.
sealover wrote:
The ONLY identified parameter.

No, it isn't. Don't try to deny your own posts.
sealover wrote:
"...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

"Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water." - Into the Night

These guys are just OOZING with scientific credibility!

You don't get to declare 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Science isn't 'credibility'.


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
05-05-2024 02:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14630)
sealover wrote: "...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

We've been over this ... the impact on a drop of [pure, magic, perfect acid] would be more pronounced by sea water than by pure water.

Exponential is not logarithmic. They are inverses.

sealover wrote: "Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water." - Into the Night

Into the Night is correct. This is also what I wrote.

sealover wrote: These guys are just OOZING with scientific credibility!

Well, not you. You deliberately omitted all relavant points of our discussion so as to present erroneous disinformation.
RE: "The impact... on the sea water."05-05-2024 18:31
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
Anyone who knows how to read can see what it says

"The impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on pure water.."

Only a stupid word game can transform this into an "exponential" "impact on a drop of (acid)", measured as something OTHER than pH.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: "...the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann

We've been over this ... the impact on a drop of [pure, magic, perfect acid] would be more pronounced by sea water than by pure water.

Exponential is not logarithmic. They are inverses.

sealover wrote: "Sea water will have a more pronounced effect than pure water." - Into the Night

Into the Night is correct. This is also what I wrote.

sealover wrote: These guys are just OOZING with scientific credibility!

Well, not you. You deliberately omitted all relavant points of our discussion so as to present erroneous disinformation.
05-05-2024 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who knows how to read can see what it says

"The impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on pure water.."

So you can read after all...or did you have someone read this to you?
Im a BM wrote:
Only a stupid word game can transform this into an "exponential" "impact on a drop of (acid)", measured as something OTHER than pH.

Paradox. Irrational.


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: "Nope. It means a proton and nothing else."08-05-2024 04:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)." - PhD biogeochemist

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy." - member with nearly 22,000 posts

See the "How would YOU know?" thread for an example of intellectual honesty.

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."

This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

Chemistry is not a high school. High schools do not mess with nuclear reactions.
sealover wrote:
When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy.

sealover wrote:
The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

Removing a proton from oxygen turns it into nitrogen. This is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.
sealover wrote:
H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

Not correct.
sealover wrote:
The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

Which is it, dude?
sealover wrote:
It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

You cannot deny your own posts.
sealover wrote:
But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry.

This thread is not about chemistry.
sealover wrote:
And biogeochemistry.

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problem onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.

Mantra 1a.
16-05-2024 17:39
sealover
★★★★☆
(1669)
Within about an hour of my first post on this first thread I started as a new poster, two years ago, I was being attacked for being a "Marxist" and a "liar" who obviously doesn't anything about chemistry.

"Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is."

And THERMODYNAMICS was being invoked as a rebuttal to my assertions about sea water chemistry.

In discussion about how an acid gets deprotonated, or how an oxyanion gets protonated in pH buffering reactions, we ran into a little snag over the definition of terms.

Into the Night's bluff as a pretend chemist might have been more effective if he had invoked "thermodynamics" to weasel out of supporting his assertions, rather than also trying to bluff as a pretend nuclear physicist.

Perhaps he should have provided an unambiguous definition for "Mantra 1a".

I don't know what Mantra 1a is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with "thermodynamics".



Im a BM wrote:
"When chemists refer to a 'proton', it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+)." - PhD biogeochemist

"Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy." - member with nearly 22,000 posts

See the "How would YOU know?" thread for an example of intellectual honesty.

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

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
"A proton coming off an oxygen atom turns it into nitrogen. That is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry."

This confirms my suspicion that ITN never even passed high school chemistry.

Chemistry is not a high school. High schools do not mess with nuclear reactions.
sealover wrote:
When chemists refer to a "proton", it is virtually always a reference to the hydrogen ion (H+).

Nope. It means a proton and nothing else. You cannot rename a proton to something else. Redefinition fallacy.

sealover wrote:
The protons that come off during the dissociation of sulfuric acid were initially attached to oxygen atoms.

Removing a proton from oxygen turns it into nitrogen. This is a nuclear reaction, not chemistry.
sealover wrote:
H2SO4 = SO4(2-) + 2H+

The only atoms bonded directly to the sulfur atom are oxygen.

Not correct.
sealover wrote:
The two hydrogen atoms are bonded, separately, to two of the oxygen atoms.

When sulfuric acid dissociates into hydrogen ions and sulfate, the negative charge on the sulfate anion arises from two of its oxygen atoms.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
(rest of molecule)S-O-H = (rest of molecule)S-O(-) + H+

There is NO nuclear reaction possible where a single proton can leave the nucleus of an oxygen atom to transform it into a nitrogen atom.

Paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
It never happens in nature and cannot be forced to happen in a laboratory.

Which is it, dude?
sealover wrote:
It is forgivable, as this thread doesn't pretend to be about nuclear physics.

You cannot deny your own posts.
sealover wrote:
But ITN writes with such definitive authority about chemistry in a thread about chemistry.

This thread is not about chemistry.
sealover wrote:
And biogeochemistry.

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Doesn't even know what "proton" means in chemistry.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problem onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
Maybe he got his PhD from the University of Unjustifiable Arrogance.

Mantra 1a.
16-05-2024 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
sealover wrote:
Within about an hour of my first post on this first thread I started as a new poster, two years ago, I was being attacked for being a "Marxist" and a "liar" who obviously doesn't anything about chemistry.

"Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is."

And THERMODYNAMICS was being invoked as a rebuttal to my assertions about sea water chemistry.

In discussion about how an acid gets deprotonated, or how an oxyanion gets protonated in pH buffering reactions, we ran into a little snag over the definition of terms.

Into the Night's bluff as a pretend chemist might have been more effective if he had invoked "thermodynamics" to weasel out of supporting his assertions, rather than also trying to bluff as a pretend nuclear physicist.

Perhaps he should have provided an unambiguous definition for "Mantra 1a".

I don't know what Mantra 1a is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with "thermodynamics".

Mantra 1a is defined at https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/59/nights-numbered-mantra-list.

You cannot discard the laws of thermodynamics by saying I'm bluffing, Sock. This ain't poker.


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
16-05-2024 20:28
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Within about an hour of my first post on this first thread I started as a new poster, two years ago, I was being attacked for being a "Marxist" and a "liar" who obviously doesn't anything about chemistry.

"Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is."

And THERMODYNAMICS was being invoked as a rebuttal to my assertions about sea water chemistry.

In discussion about how an acid gets deprotonated, or how an oxyanion gets protonated in pH buffering reactions, we ran into a little snag over the definition of terms.

Into the Night's bluff as a pretend chemist might have been more effective if he had invoked "thermodynamics" to weasel out of supporting his assertions, rather than also trying to bluff as a pretend nuclear physicist.

Perhaps he should have provided an unambiguous definition for "Mantra 1a".

I don't know what Mantra 1a is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with "thermodynamics".

Mantra 1a is defined at https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/59/nights-numbered-mantra-list.

You cannot discard the laws of thermodynamics by saying I'm bluffing, Sock. This ain't poker.



I strongly discourage anyone from opening up links provided by Internet trolls.

Their behavior in discussion offers plenty of clues into their malignant narcissism

Their zeal for doxing site members is another clue to malicious intentions.

Their website links might be harmless, but I wouldn't trust them for one second.
16-05-2024 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Within about an hour of my first post on this first thread I started as a new poster, two years ago, I was being attacked for being a "Marxist" and a "liar" who obviously doesn't anything about chemistry.

"Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is."

And THERMODYNAMICS was being invoked as a rebuttal to my assertions about sea water chemistry.

In discussion about how an acid gets deprotonated, or how an oxyanion gets protonated in pH buffering reactions, we ran into a little snag over the definition of terms.

Into the Night's bluff as a pretend chemist might have been more effective if he had invoked "thermodynamics" to weasel out of supporting his assertions, rather than also trying to bluff as a pretend nuclear physicist.

Perhaps he should have provided an unambiguous definition for "Mantra 1a".

I don't know what Mantra 1a is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with "thermodynamics".

Mantra 1a is defined at https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/59/nights-numbered-mantra-list.

You cannot discard the laws of thermodynamics by saying I'm bluffing, Sock. This ain't poker.

I strongly discourage anyone from opening up links provided by Internet trolls.

Okay. I won't open any of your links.


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
23-05-2024 20:43
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(911)
Of course, this post by IBdaMann, on the same day as my very first post as a member of climate-debate.com, is full of false accusations.

(You are a liar... You do not have a degree in chemistry... You came here to preach non-science gibber babble.. at the local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters..)

But more revealing is the confession of scientific illiteracy.

"gibber babble" "meaningless jargon" "sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber babble" "Forget about posting gibberish papers"

IBdaMann has no idea what the words mean in a scientific document.

Calls it "gibber babble" as if it didn't mean anything to ANYONE.

Scientists understand it perfectly. IBdaMann wouldn't know that.

This particular religious cult has a definition of "science" that doesn't even include ANYTHING about the Scientific Method.

No wonder they can't make any sense out of "gibberish papers."



IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.
23-05-2024 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22171)
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, this post by IBdaMann, on the same day as my very first post as a member of climate-debate.com, is full of false accusations.

(You are a liar... You do not have a degree in chemistry... You came here to preach non-science gibber babble.. at the local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters..)

He is correct.
Im a BM wrote:
But more revealing is the confession of scientific illiteracy.

YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Sock.
Im a BM wrote:
"gibber babble" "meaningless jargon" "sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber babble" "Forget about posting gibberish papers"

IBdaMann has no idea what the words mean in a scientific document.

Science isn't a document.
Im a BM wrote:
Calls it "gibber babble" as if it didn't mean anything to ANYONE.

Scientists understand it perfectly. IBdaMann wouldn't know that.

Gibber babble is not anything to understand. You don't get to speak for scientists. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
This particular religious cult has a definition of "science" that doesn't even include ANYTHING about the Scientific Method.

Science is not a method.


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
Page 11 of 11<<<91011





Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification44224-05-2024 22:43
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