Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 12 of 13<<<10111213>
23-06-2024 19:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: It seemed for a couple of years that all the hundreds of times it was decreed that "There is no such thing", it was ALWAYS because whatever term was being used had been decreed to be a "meaningless buzzword".

Nope. It seemed for a couple of years that you didn't know any legitimate terms, only empty buzzwords, and that all you could do was to play stupid word games.

sealover wrote: Apparently, "alkalinity" is an exception. Apparently, alkalinity is a real chemical parameter, but it is not a "thing".

Nope. You misread. Your English proficiency is somewhat poor and you are trying to blame someone else.

sealover wrote: Into the Night is owed an apology.

It's the proper thing to do.

sealover wrote: And to this day, neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night has ever shown they even know what UNITS are used to report this NOT a "thing" called alkalinity.

There are several units that can be used, but here we've adopted the convention of using "ppm" and you never seemed to have a problem with it.

Do you now have a problem with ppm carbonate or ppm bicarbonate? If so, tough.

sealover wrote: They don't seem to realize how indirect the relationship is to pH.

You were the one constantly pivoting to alkalinity away from pH.
23-06-2024 20:37
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Alkalinity is NEVER reported as "ppm", nor "ppm bicarbonate", nor "ppm carbonate".

"ppm" is always based on the MASS, and says nothing about moles, or properties that are proportional to moles.

Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter H+ that can be neutralized, or mass per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

The relationship between pH and alkalinity is not direct, and nothing about alkalinity is defined by whether pH is above or below 7.

A solution can have very low alkalinity and very high pH.

A 0.001 molar solution of sodium hydroxide has pH = 11, but only has 0.001 moles per liter alkalinity.

A solution of organic acid (e.g. citric acid) can have pH = 4, and more than 100 times as much alkalinity as the pH 11 solution of sodium hydroxide.

Another reason that alkalinity isn't reported as ppm carbonate or bicarbonate is because these are just two of the oxyanions that potentially contribute to total alkalinity.

Water quality reports are often required to include measure of total alkalinity, hydroxide alkalinity, bicarbonate alkalinity, and carbonate alkalinity.

NONE of these parameters are reported as ppm (= one milligram per kilogram), but rather moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or (grams or milligrams) per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

Calcium carbonate equivalent is the MASS of calcium carbonate per liter with EQUIVALENT acid neutralizing capacity (moles of acid per liter)

A mole of calcium carbonate weighs 100 grams, and has 2 moles of acid neutralizing capacity per mole. So a solution with 500 milliGRAMS per liter calcium carbonate equivalents alkalinity ALSO has 10 milliMOLES per liter alkalinity.

Invoking "ppm carbonate" or "ppm bicarbonate" shows that two years wasn't long enough to learn ANYTHING about alkalinity.


IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: It seemed for a couple of years that all the hundreds of times it was decreed that "There is no such thing", it was ALWAYS because whatever term was being used had been decreed to be a "meaningless buzzword".

Nope. It seemed for a couple of years that you didn't know any legitimate terms, only empty buzzwords, and that all you could do was to play stupid word games.

sealover wrote: Apparently, "alkalinity" is an exception. Apparently, alkalinity is a real chemical parameter, but it is not a "thing".

Nope. You misread. Your English proficiency is somewhat poor and you are trying to blame someone else.

sealover wrote: Into the Night is owed an apology.

It's the proper thing to do.

sealover wrote: And to this day, neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night has ever shown they even know what UNITS are used to report this NOT a "thing" called alkalinity.

There are several units that can be used, but here we've adopted the convention of using "ppm" and you never seemed to have a problem with it.

Do you now have a problem with ppm carbonate or ppm bicarbonate? If so, tough.

sealover wrote: They don't seem to realize how indirect the relationship is to pH.

You were the one constantly pivoting to alkalinity away from pH.
24-06-2024 00:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Sea Water Alkalinity Fun Facts

The average pH of sea water is about 8.2

The average alkalinity of sea water is 116 milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

If one is given data for one of these values for any water sample, the other value can be calculated using a conversion factor of 50.

The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.



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.
24-06-2024 02:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is NEVER reported as "ppm", nor "ppm bicarbonate", nor "ppm carbonate".

Alkalinity is often measured in ppm. You personally might never measure it that way but you don't speak for everyone.

I can go with whatever units you wish. If you wanted something else, you could haved said something.

Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is reported either as moles per liter H+ that can be neutralized, or mass per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

I'll take this to mean that you want moles per liter H+. I can do that. Another option is to use the specific SI units. Just pick one.

Im a BM wrote: The relationship between pH and alkalinity is not direct,

Alkalinity is a property and pH is a measure.

Im a BM wrote: ... and nothing about alkalinity is defined by whether pH is above or below 7.

... and nothing about pH is defined by the quantity of bicarbonate.

Im a BM wrote: Another reason that alkalinity isn't reported as ppm carbonate or bicarbonate is because these are just two of the oxyanions that potentially contribute to total alkalinity.

I gave you a list of them. You didn't like my list for some reason.

Im a BM wrote: NONE of these parameters are reported as ppm (= one milligram per kilogram), but rather moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or (grams or milligrams) per liter calcium carbonate equivalents.

You should have spoken up earlier, but there's no time like the present.
24-06-2024 17:44
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Units used to report alkalinity - Additional Note

Outside of the US, the most common way to report alkalinity is as moles or equivalents of H+ per liter that can be neutralized.

"Equivalents" is part of the unit, not to be confused with CaCO3 "eqivalents".

So, sea water has, on average:

2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.
2.3 milliequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 micromoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 microequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

OR

116 milligrams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.
0.116 grams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.



Sea Water Alkalinity Fun Facts

The average pH of sea water is about 8.2

The average alkalinity of sea water is 116 milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

If one is given data for one of these values for any water sample, the other value can be calculated using a conversion factor of 50.

The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.



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.[/quote]
24-06-2024 18:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

Nope.

You think that putting "acidification" in quotes gets you off the hook for continuing to push an incorrect term for the very unscientific hype, fear and panic it generates, and for not understanding that water evaporates, releasing exactly as much CO2 as is absorbed, i.e. equilibrium.

All of this gives you away. You can't legitimately call yourself a chemist while not understand that ocean water evaporates. The amount of water on planet earth is a fixed quantity. If evaporation and precipitation form the cycle by which CO2 is absorbed and released, there is an equilibrium. Any actual chemist would know this.

Also, chemists understand erosion of rocks and minerals, and how it constantly increases the ocean's alkalinity, explaining why the ocean has always been alkaline and has never acidified.

As keepit would say, you are full of baloney. Too many false statements. How do you claim to be a Binomialchemist without understanding any of the basics.

I hope you get your censorship forum post haste.

sealover wrote: The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

But ocean life in general would benefit from reduced alkalinity. Life is acidic. Ocean life would thrive if the ocean were to become slightly less alkaline. There's plenty of carbonate in the ocean for the shellfish that need it; far more than enough.

sealover wrote: Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems.

You are chanting your rookie errors through your spam. Erosion of rocks and minerals is the primary source of alkalinity.
24-06-2024 19:45
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
"EQUIVALENTS" as units used to report numerical values for alkalinity.

Two ways to report values for alkalinity both include the term "equivalent"

For example, "equivalents" per liter versus milligrams per liter CaCO3 "equivalents".

In one case, the UNIT is an "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity per liter.

In the other case, the unit is a milligram of calcium carbonate per liter, based on the "equivalent" H+ neutralizing capacity measured.

One "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity is the same as one MOLE of H+ neutralizing capacity.

The actual measurement of alkalinity is usually direct addition of acid to a sample until an endpoint pH is reached.

To translate that to milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents, as required for US environmental regulations...

One mole of calcium carbonate weighs 100 grams.

One mole of calcium carbonate neutralizes two moles or two equivalents of H+.

Therefore, 50 milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents is the same as 1 millimole per liter or 1 milliequivalent per liter H+ neutralizing capacity.

The conversion factor of 50 translates the two units used to report values for alkalinity in virtually every scientific or technical communication.

PS Alkalinity is NEVER reported as "ppm" (milligrams per kilogram)


Outside of the US, the most common way to report alkalinity is as moles or equivalents of H+ per liter that can be neutralized.

"Equivalents" is part of the unit, not to be confused with CaCO3 "eqivalents".

So, sea water has, on average:

2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.
2.3 milliequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 micromoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 microequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

OR

116 milligrams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.
0.116 grams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.



Sea Water Alkalinity Fun Facts

The average pH of sea water is about 8.2

The average alkalinity of sea water is 116 milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

If one is given data for one of these values for any water sample, the other value can be calculated using a conversion factor of 50.

The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.



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.
25-06-2024 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
"EQUIVALENTS" as units used to report numerical values for alkalinity.

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
Two ways to report values for alkalinity both include the term "equivalent"

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
For example, "equivalents" per liter versus milligrams per liter CaCO3 "equivalents".

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
In one case, the UNIT is an "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity per liter.

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
In the other case, the unit is a milligram of calcium carbonate per liter, based on the "equivalent" H+ neutralizing capacity measured.

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
One "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity is the same as one MOLE of H+ neutralizing capacity.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
The actual measurement of alkalinity is usually direct addition of acid to a sample until an endpoint pH is reached.

An acid it not an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
To translate that to milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents, as required for US environmental regulations...

One mole of calcium carbonate weighs 100 grams.

So?
sealover wrote:
One mole of calcium carbonate neutralizes two moles or two equivalents of H+.

You can't neutralize hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
Therefore, 50 milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents is the same as 1 millimole per liter or 1 milliequivalent per liter H+ neutralizing capacity.

You can't neutralize hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
The conversion factor of 50 translates the two units used to report values for alkalinity in virtually every scientific or technical communication.

There is no such thing as 'alkalinity' as a value.
sealover wrote:
PS Alkalinity is NEVER reported as "ppm" (milligrams per kilogram)

It is not used.
sealover wrote:
Outside of the US, the most common way to report alkalinity is as moles or equivalents of H+ per liter that can be neutralized.

You cannot neutralize hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
"Equivalents" is part of the unit, not to be confused with CaCO3 "eqivalents".

Equivalents do not have a unit.
sealover wrote:
So, sea water has, on average:

2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.
2.3 milliequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 micromoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 microequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.
[quote]sealover wrote:
OR

116 milligrams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.
0.116 grams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.

You cannot neutralize hydrogen.

sealover wrote:
Sea Water Alkalinity Fun Facts

The average pH of sea water is about 8.2

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
sealover wrote:
The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. You cannot acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2024 17:59
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
You're just showing your lack of chemistry knowledge itn. To put it politely.
25-06-2024 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
You're just showing your lack of chemistry knowledge itn. To put it politely.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, Keepit.


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
25-06-2024 19:55
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Additional note:

ONE mole of calcium carbonate, CaCO3, can neutralize TWO moles of hydrogen ion, H+. This equals 2 equivalents of alkalinity per mole.

CaCO3 has 2 equivalents per mole of alkalinity.

Or 2000 milliequivalents per mole of alkalinity, equals 2000 meq/mol

Sea water has 2.3 meq/liter alkalinity.

One mole, or 100 grams of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) has nearly as much alkalinity as 1000 liters of sea water.



"EQUIVALENTS" as units used to report numerical values for alkalinity.

Two ways to report values for alkalinity both include the term "equivalent"

For example, "equivalents" per liter versus milligrams per liter CaCO3 "equivalents".

In one case, the UNIT is an "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity per liter.

In the other case, the unit is a milligram of calcium carbonate per liter, based on the "equivalent" H+ neutralizing capacity measured.

One "equivalent" of H+ neutralizing capacity is the same as one MOLE of H+ neutralizing capacity.

The actual measurement of alkalinity is usually direct addition of acid to a sample until an endpoint pH is reached.

To translate that to milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents, as required for US environmental regulations...

One mole of calcium carbonate weighs 100 grams.

One mole of calcium carbonate neutralizes two moles or two equivalents of H+.

Therefore, 50 milligrams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents is the same as 1 millimole per liter or 1 milliequivalent per liter H+ neutralizing capacity.

The conversion factor of 50 translates the two units used to report values for alkalinity in virtually every scientific or technical communication.

PS Alkalinity is NEVER reported as "ppm" (milligrams per kilogram)


Outside of the US, the most common way to report alkalinity is as moles or equivalents of H+ per liter that can be neutralized.

"Equivalents" is part of the unit, not to be confused with CaCO3 "eqivalents".

So, sea water has, on average:

2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.
2.3 milliequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 micromoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity
2300 microequivalents per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

OR

116 milligrams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.
0.116 grams per liter, CaCO3 equivalents of H+ neutralizing capacity.



Sea Water Alkalinity Fun Facts

The average pH of sea water is about 8.2

The average alkalinity of sea water is 116 milligrams per liter, calcium carbonate equivalents.

The average alkalinity of sea water is 2.3 millimoles per liter, H+ neutralizing capacity.

If one is given data for one of these values for any water sample, the other value can be calculated using a conversion factor of 50.

The pH of the sea has decreased between 0.1 and 0.2 pH units as a consequence of ocean "acidification".

The most significant consequence for marine biology is that this results in a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ion in solution.

Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion to form calcium carbonate shell.



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.[/quote]
25-06-2024 22:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: Additional note:

Can't you wait just a little and confine your spamming to your censorship subforum? Then you'll be able to spam all you want and nobody will say anything.
27-06-2024 20:53
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.
27-06-2024 21:13
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
keepit wrote:
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.


I appreciate the acknowledgement, keepit!

A viewer of this discussion does not have to rely on my omniscience, nor my advanced degrees, publications, etc.

The following paper was published in the journal SCIENCE, and has been cited in 3118 different peer-reviewed scientific papers about the subject.

R.A. Feely et al. 2004. Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the Oceans. Science volume 305(5682) pages 362-366.


This paper spells out how too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in reduced concentration of carbonate ion in marine ecosystems available for shell formation.

Much more recent work by the same researcher gives much more up to date information about this.

And the 3118 papers that cited this work since it was published also provide many references for the subject.

"The carbonate system", as it is taught in water chemistry, is the "CaCO3 system in the oceans" referred to in the paper title.

The carbonate system is a complex multiplayer equilibrium including carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

I'll pull up the more recent papers by Dr. Feely at some point.
28-06-2024 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.

A professional spammer?? You think Robert is getting paid to spam? Are you jealous?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-06-2024 22:44
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
Wrong again itn.
28-06-2024 22:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote:
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.


I appreciate the acknowledgement, keepit!

A viewer of this discussion does not have to rely on my omniscience, nor my advanced degrees, publications, etc.

You are not God. Your religion is false.
sealover wrote:
The following paper was published in the journal SCIENCE, and has been cited in 3118 different peer-reviewed scientific papers about the subject.

Science is not a journal, paper, book, or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
sealover wrote:
...
This paper spells out how too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in reduced concentration of carbonate ion in marine ecosystems available for shell formation.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Much more recent work by the same researcher gives much more up to date information about this.

And the 3118 papers that cited this work since it was published also provide many references for the subject.

Science is not a paper or a research. Your religion is not science.
sealover wrote:
"The carbonate system", as it is taught in water chemistry, is the "CaCO3 system in the oceans" referred to in the paper title.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
The carbonate system is a complex multiplayer equilibrium including carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
I'll pull up the more recent papers by Dr. Feely at some point.

Science is not a paper. Your religion is not 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
28-06-2024 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
Wrong again itn.

So he's NOT a professional spammer? Which is it, dude? You are locked in another paradox.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-06-2024 22:52
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
itn,
It seems to me that you're wrong quite often.
29-06-2024 06:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
itn,
It seems to me that you're wrong quite often.

So he IS a professional spammer. Make up your mind, dude.


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
29-06-2024 10:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: Wrong again itn.

Wrong again, keepit. You're still full of baloney.
01-07-2024 18:13
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Perhaps the "unambiguous definition" for organic carbon or organic nitrogen can be derived by how they are analyzed.

One of the papers I authored, although not as FIRST author in this case:

ZS Yu, et al. 1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-nitrogen.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, volume 25, pages 3161-3169.


30 years later, a version of this method is now approved by EPA as a substitute for the old Kjeldahl digest procedure.

Maybe we can't get around the word game of how to DEFINE organic nitrogen or organic carbon.

So, how do we MEASURE them?

I got the idea to use persulfate oxidation for organic nitrogen because that is how the Dohrman carbon analyzer measures organic carbon.

A sample is placed into the analyzer. Step one is to drive off all the INORGANIC carbon as carbon dioxide. Strong acid is added to the sample. All carbonates and bicarbonates are released as carbon dioxide, measured by IR absorption.

Yes, the capacity of CO2 to absorb infrared and act as a greenhouse gas also makes it possible to MEASURE CO2, as it is the only gas emitted from the samples that CAN absorb infrared in such a clear peak at that IR wavelength.

Step two is to add a strong OXIDANT (potassium persulfate).

This OXIDIZES organic carbon to inorganic carbon, which is what makes the two kinds of carbon different.

A second wave of carbon dioxide emitted from the sample is measured by IR.

For organic nitrogen, first all the INORGANIC nitrogen in the sample is measured. All the ammonium and nitrate in the sample is measured.

Then the sample is OXIDIZED using persulfate.

The organic nitrogen is oxidized to nitrate. The organic carbon associated with the organic nitrogen is oxidized to carbon dioxide.

So, if the word game theory about oxidation state of carbon determining whether or not it is "organic" gets too twisted, just use the practical test of actually OXIDIZING the sample.

That's how they measure organic carbon or organic nitrogen.

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

Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.

Carbon and nitrogen are elements whose transformations and fluxes are of crucial importance to understanding climate change and ocean acidification.

Historically, the difficulty of performing carbon and nitrogen analysis limited the quantity of data an investigation could acquire within limitations of budget and manhours.

I was lucky to arrive when big leaps had just been made.

The first lab I worked had a carbon analyzer that used potassium persulfate as oxidant. It measured carbon dioxide emitted from samples during digestion using infrared absorption.

It gave total carbon, total inorganic carbon, and total organic carbon.

In the first step, strong acid was added to the sample. All the inorganic carbon - bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon dioxide, was driven off as CO2.

After addition of strong acid, infrared absorbance of CO2 emitted gave measure of total INORGANIC carbon (TIC).

Next, alkaline potassium persulfate was added and ultraviolet light turned on to accelerate digestion.

All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant. Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).

The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.

Now, we needed to measure total nitrogen, total ammonium, total nitrate, and total organic nitrogen in samples.

The available tests were slow, cumbersome, difficult, and often dangerous.

For total nitrogen, in order to calculate organic nitrogen by difference after measuring ammonium and nitrate, the Kjeldahl digest was the classic go to.

The Kjeldahl digest was HARD! You had to use concentrated acid at boiling high temperature for hours and hours and hours. A good fume hood, a lot of safety equipment, and a lot of patience was required.

But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did?

Relatively low temperature, UV enhanced digestion with alkaline potassium persulfate to oxidize all organic nitrogen to nitrate. Forget risking injury doing Kjeldahl!

We settled on conductimetric measure of ammonium, but we could have done it many ways.

First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium.

Then use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetrically. Total ammonium plus nitrate. Subtract total ammonium to get total nitrate.

Then use persulfate oxidation to turn all organic nitrogen into nitrate.

Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;;

This gives total organic nitrogen, when total ammonium and total nitrate are subtracted from it.

Dissolved organic nitrogen turns out to be the dominant vehicle for nitrogen fluxes in many soils and surface waters.

Trying to use the Kjeldahl digest made it very difficult to get much useful data.

Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.

Sometimes advances in science are technological tricks to be able to get data.

Once you can get that data, you can support all kinds of theoretical discoveries.

Also note that "organic nitrogen" is in the TITLE of our paper.

Apparently, not all scientists agree with our local trolls about this one.
01-07-2024 23:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote:Maybe we can't get around the word game of how to DEFINE organic nitrogen or organic carbon.

That's not the problem presented by your word games. The problem is defining what you are labeling as "organic carbon."
04-07-2024 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
Perhaps the "unambiguous definition" for organic carbon or organic nitrogen can be derived by how they are analyzed.

Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic.
sealover wrote:
One of the papers I authored, although not as FIRST author in this case:

ZS Yu, et al. 1994. Determination of dissolved organic nitrogen using persulfate oxidation and conductimetric quantification of nitrate-nitrogen.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, volume 25, pages 3161-3169.

Science is not a paper. Chemistry is not a paper.
[quote]sealover wrote:
30 years later, a version of this method is now approved by EPA as a substitute for the old Kjeldahl digest procedure.

Science is not a government agency. Chemistry is not a government agency.
sealover wrote:
Maybe we can't get around the word game of how to DEFINE organic nitrogen or organic carbon.

YOUR word games. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.
Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic.
sealover wrote:
So, how do we MEASURE them?

You can't.
sealover wrote:
I got the idea to use persulfate oxidation for organic nitrogen because that is how the Dohrman carbon analyzer measures organic carbon.

Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
A sample is placed into the analyzer. Step one is to drive off all the INORGANIC carbon as carbon dioxide. Strong acid is added to the sample. All carbonates and bicarbonates are released as carbon dioxide, measured by IR absorption.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Yes, the capacity of CO2 to absorb infrared

All materials absorb infrared light.
sealover wrote:
and act as a greenhouse gas

No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
also makes it possible to MEASURE CO2, as it is the only gas emitted from the samples that CAN absorb infrared in such a clear peak at that IR wavelength.

It is not possible to measure the global atmosphere content of CO2.
sealover wrote:
Step two is to add a strong OXIDANT (potassium persulfate).

This OXIDIZES organic carbon to inorganic carbon, which is what makes the two kinds of carbon different.

There is only one kind of carbon: carbon.
sealover wrote:
A second wave of carbon dioxide emitted from the sample is measured by IR.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
For organic nitrogen, first all the INORGANIC nitrogen in the sample is measured. All the ammonium and nitrate in the sample is measured.

Ammonia is not nitrogen. Nitrogen is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Then the sample is OXIDIZED using persulfate.

The organic nitrogen

Nitrogen is not organic. Persulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
is oxidized to nitrate. The organic carbon associated with the organic nitrogen is oxidized to carbon dioxide.

Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. There is no nitrogen in carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
So, if the word game theory
about oxidation state of carbon determining whether or not it is "organic" gets too twisted, just use the practical test of actually OXIDIZING the sample.

YOUR word game. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.
sealover wrote:
That's how they measure organic carbon or organic nitrogen.

Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic.


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
04-07-2024 20:29
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
itn,
Do you really not know what he's talking about when he uses the phrase "organic carbon and inorganic carbon"?
Don't live in the past.
04-07-2024 23:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Do you really not know what he's talking about when he uses the phrase "organic carbon and inorganic carbon"?
Don't live in the past.



Perhaps the take home lesson is that one should blame their own problem on anyone else.


In theory, this would have been a thread about the biogeochemistry of ocean "acidification" and how to restore alkalinity.

But it keeps getting covered in posts from those who refuse to believe that alkalinity even exists.

"There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" - Into the Night

The same scientific genius who keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

The same disgusting troll who personally accounts for more than one fifth of ALL posts on a website with more than 1700 members.

"There is no such thing as climate change"

And nobody should be allowed to say anything about it without providing definitions to the satisfaction of scientifically illiterate trolls.

Who will immediately tell any new member that they are a liar and a moron.
05-07-2024 17:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Im a BM wrote: Perhaps the take home lesson is that one should blame their own problem on anyone else.

Perhaps the take home lesson is that one should actually know the difference between weather and climate before engaging in climate discussions and mistakenly conflating weather with climate for more than two years.

Im a BM wrote: In theory, this would have been a thread about the biogeochemistry of ocean "acidification" and how to restore alkalinity.

... except that you never learned that water evaporates. That's kind of a big deal on this topic. I should not have had to teach it to you.


Water.


Evaporates.


All CO2 that is absorbed into ocean water is realeased back into the atmosphere upon evaporation. All of it. Because we're talking about one planet and one ocean, it is necessarily an equilibrium, not somehow a one-way accumulation of the earth's CO2 into the ocean. How do you not know this?


Water.


Evaporates.


Will you remember this over the next two years or will you forget?

Im a BM wrote: But it keeps getting covered in posts from those who refuse to believe that alkalinity even exists.

You can't pay attention long enough to properly characterize the solid rebuttals to your arguments, perhaps because you aren't sufficiently educated to understand what others write.

"Alkalinity" is an abstract class. Now, you have no idea what that even means so you tune it out and ignore it. Unfortunately for you, it is a true statement and it refutes your claims if left unrebutted. When you inisist that a member of an abstract class exists, you get laughed out of court, as it were.

You cannot fill a bucket with "alkalinity." Why not? Because there is no such substance. Of course there are solutions with buffering capacity and the ability to neutralize acids. You can fill a bucket with a substance that has the property of being alkaline (or of being able to neutralize an acid). If you had ever studied chemistry to any degree, you would have learned that "alkalinity" is not a chemical but is a property of a solution that is dependent on the presence of certain chemicals such as bicarbonates, carbonates, and hydroxides.

Someone who knows what he is talking about on this matter is likely going to say up front that there is no such thing as "alkalinity" per se.

Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" - Into the Night

So you have identified Into the Night as someone who knows about what he is discussing. Have you considered asking him to teach you about chemistry? He seems to be able to differentiate between concrete and abstract classes so that makes him a good candidate for these types of discussions.

Im a BM wrote: The same scientific genius who keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

If you had studied chemistry to any degree, you would know that carbon atoms are all the same. Any one carbon atom is identical to any other. I don't really know why you can't grasp this but there is no organic/inorganic distinction between carbon atoms.

Im a BM wrote: "There is no such thing as climate change"

Are you saying that there is sucha thing that you can unambiguously express or are you just a raving troll?

Im a BM wrote: Who will immediately tell any new member that they are a liar and a moron.

"They" is a plural pronoun. "New member" is singular. You should keep your parallel structure straight.

Re. ROBERT NORTHUP, they is a moron.
05-07-2024 17:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
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:
[quote]sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH.

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

Do the math.

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"?
06-07-2024 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Do you really not know what he's talking about when he uses the phrase "organic carbon and inorganic carbon"?
Don't live in the past.


He's not talking about anything, Keepit.
Carbon is not organic.


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
06-07-2024 01:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Do you really not know what he's talking about when he uses the phrase "organic carbon and inorganic carbon"?
Don't live in the past.



Perhaps the take home lesson is that one should blame their own problem on anyone else.

LIF. Grow up.
Im a BM wrote:
In theory, this would have been a thread about the biogeochemistry of ocean "acidification" and how to restore alkalinity.

Buzzword fallacy (biogeochemistry). You cannot acidify an alkaline. You cannot restore what already is.
Im a BM wrote:
But it keeps getting covered in posts from those who refuse to believe that alkalinity even exists.

The oceans are alkaline. Alkalinity exists.
Im a BM wrote:
The same scientific genius who keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
The same disgusting troll who personally accounts for more than one fifth of ALL posts on a website with more than 1700 members.

Number of posts do not make a troll, Robert. Redefinition fallacy. Jealousy.
Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as climate change"

Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
And nobody should be allowed to say anything about it without providing definitions to the satisfaction of scientifically illiterate trolls.

There is no definition where climate can change. I have provided all of my definitions to you as well as copies of the laws of thermodynamics that you ignore.
Im a BM wrote:
Who will immediately tell any new member that they are a liar and a moron.

You cannot blame your problem on anybody else, Robert.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2024 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
Im a BM 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.
Im a BM wrote:
Straightforward chemistry about how little buffering capacity pure water has.

You obviously don't know what a buffer is.
Im a BM wrote:
The identified parameter was pH. (..huge drop in pH).

You apparently don't understand the concept of pH.


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
13-07-2024 00:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM 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.
Im a BM wrote:
Straightforward chemistry about how little buffering capacity pure water has.

You obviously don't know what a buffer is.
Im a BM wrote:
The identified parameter was pH. (..huge drop in pH).

You apparently don't understand the concept of pH.



Only a genuine "chemist" would know that pure water is good "buffer" against "pH" change when acid is added.

Because only a legitimate "chemist" knows what a "buffer" is and understands "the concept of pH".

Even IBdaMann realized his mistake, and came up with an absurd obfuscation about "change to the acid", rather than STUPIDLY digging in to the pure-water-is-a-good-buffer-against-pH-change-upon-addition-of-acid position.

Pure water is literally the LEAST buffered aqueous solution in chemistry.

Literally ANY other aqueous solution will show LESS increase in hydrogen ion concentration (i.e. decrease in pH), compared to pure water, when a drop of acid is added.

Damn! If this guy is a CHEMIST, people better watch out.

He is also a PILOT!

I hope his flying skills are far superior to his knowledge of chemistry.

For added comedy, take into account that this is after more than two years during which he could have learned what alkalinity was before, once again, reinserting the foot into the mouth.
13-07-2024 01:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Im a BM wrote:Even IBdaMann realized his mistake,

Remember that you were the one who asked "which would have the greatest effect" and I acknowledged that I presumed you were talking about which would have the greatest effect on the theoretical pure magic acid that you were discussing.

Sea water will, as I mentioned, have a much greater impact on your magical pure acid than the pure water will, because the effect is exponential with increased pH, not logarithmic ... and you have had every chance to agree ... but you insist upon disagreeing for some reason.

Whatever, enjoy.
13-07-2024 03:44
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

sealover, the ocean has never acidified.

You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.

Ocean Acidification Debunked

Into the Night's comments

Coral Bleaching Debunked



I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.
13-07-2024 11:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

I don't know if I'd go that far. You still won't define your terms and you deny basic science in the name of your WACKY religion.

sealover wrote: Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

... or they cite the published work of those who allowed you to include your name on their paper.

sealover wrote:NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.

... or you could have simply chided him for momentarily confusing carbonic acid with carbolic acid, and been done with it.

sealover wrote: "Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

You just wasted a chunk of bandwidth on this pivot of yours. You should have simply written "Yes, Into the Night, you are correct that water also serves as a buffer."

sealover wrote: Liars disgust me.

I hate liars as well.

Tell us again how your favorite Dominican coral reef was destroyed.

Did you get your censorship zone yet?
13-07-2024 16:49
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Speaking of "WACKY"..

IBdaMann continues to suggest that I was "allowed" by others to include my name on their paper.

They were more generous than that. They "allowed" a graduate student who hadn't yet finished his PhD to be FIRST author of those papers that got cited by thousands of scientists. Blackmail and bribery can take you far in academia!

Into the Night consistently referred to carbonic acid as "carbolic acid" for the early years of his trolling here. It wasn't a momentary lapse. In this little essay alone, he wrote "carbolic acid" three different times.

Perhaps I should lie to Into the Night to console his feelings. A pretty lie to make him feel better would be:

"Yes, Into the Night, you are correct that water also serves as a buffer."

It would be a lie. Water does NOT serve as a buffer.

I now understand why you made the ignorant claim that you were giving me the "correct" answer with the "magical acid" thing.

What little you knew about buffering, you learned from "Into the Night's comments".

You BOTH seem to think that pure water can act as a buffer against pH change.

And I FINALLY read your idiotic "Ocean Acidification Debunked".

There is no mention of anything about alkalinity, bicarbonate, carbonate, or even carbonic acid.

Here is where you went FULL retard:

5. "Life is acidic... Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations to survive."

You are explicitly claiming that if the ocean really did become acidic, "life would thrive like never before."

The "Debunking" thing is a meaningless little manifesto ("Natural geologic processes maintain an alkaline ocean"). There is no mention of alkalinity or acid neutralizing capacity, cause IBdaMann never learned about such things.

No mention of the carbonate system, or even the fact that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid. Carbonic acid does NOT evaporate easily. It almost always stays behind in the sea while water molecules evaporate all around it. The absurd notion of "evaporation" as an important acid neutralizing process in sea water...

No mention of bicarbonate or carbonate ions, and simply denying that the pH decrease of the ocean has ALREADY BEEN MEASURED. The pH has decreased by a little more than 0.1 pH unit, quite consistent with about a 30% depletion of total alkalinity.

Marine organisms aren't being impacted by hydrogen ions affecting their physiology. They are being impacted by the diminished availability of carbonate ion in solution. They can't form calcium carbonate shell without it.

The only thing "debunked" in the little manifesto is any possible credibility IBdaMann might have in a discussion about ocean "acidification".

All he offers are semantic word games about the term "acidifying".

Two years later, he still says that water is a buffer for acid, just like Parrot Boy.

"So, Mr. Chemistry genius..", how exactly does water act as a buffer?

I know that at pH 7, there are ten to the minus seven moles per liter of hydroxide ion available. But there are also ten to the minus seven moles per liter of hydrogen ion already present. How is THAT going to buffer any added acid?

Sea water is different, having about 100 times as much hydroxide ion as hydrogen ion in solution. It's a bit more than that, but rounding down to pH 8 (rather than 8.2 for sea water), there are ten to the minus eight moles per liter hydrogen ions, while there are ten to the minus six moles per liter hydroxide ions.

But hydroxide ion is not what provides more than 99% of sea water's buffering capacity. Bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions are what buffer sea water, with a very very small contribution from other oxyanions.

Bicarbonate and carbonate are both oxyanion conjugate bases of carbonic acid, a very weak acid.

I can't wait to see these guys come back and claim that they taught ME that.


IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

I don't know if I'd go that far. You still won't define your terms and you deny basic science in the name of your WACKY religion.

sealover wrote: Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

... or they cite the published work of those who allowed you to include your name on their paper.

sealover wrote:NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.

... or you could have simply chided him for momentarily confusing carbonic acid with carbolic acid, and been done with it.

sealover wrote: "Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

You just wasted a chunk of bandwidth on this pivot of yours. You should have simply written "Yes, Into the Night, you are correct that water also serves as a buffer."

sealover wrote: Liars disgust me.

I hate liars as well.

Tell us again how your favorite Dominican coral reef was destroyed.

Did you get your censorship zone yet?
14-07-2024 03:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: IBdaMann continues to suggest that I was "allowed" by others to include my name on their paper.

Well, you were. I see your name there.

sealover wrote: Into the Night consistently referred to carbonic acid as "carbolic acid" for the early years of his trolling here.

That's another way of saying that you never pointed it out to him. In fact, it looks exactly the same as you not having known either, until you one day learned that little piece of information and decided to pull an I-know-something-you-don't-know-athon.

Of course, if you had only said something when you first saw his oversight rather than having waited until you had finally learned that information yourself, we'd clearly have a different story.

sealover wrote:"Yes, Into the Night, you are correct that water also serves as a buffer." It would be a lie. Water does NOT serve as a buffer.

I wish you would stop playing your word games. A buffer always refers to the solution as a whole, not to its constituent components. Water is a component of the solution that is a buffer.

sealover wrote: You BOTH seem to think that pure water can act as a buffer against pH change.

It depends entirely on one's operating definitions. I'm find with whatever you wish to declare for your own purposes.

sealover wrote: And I FINALLY read your idiotic "Ocean Acidification Debunked".

... and your religion kicked in. Do it. Put your phony credentials on the line.

sealover wrote: There is no mention of anything about alkalinity, bicarbonate, carbonate, or even carbonic acid.

Correct. It's all totally irrelevant. There is no ocean acidification, so nothing about alkalinity or veal carbonara even comes into play.

Did you see my mention of ocean water evaporation? It pissed you off, didn't it. You're still trying to delude yourself into denying that it even happens, and then I come along and dredge up water evaporation and ruin your entire self-delusion effort.

The ocean is not somehow losing its alkalinity.

You believe in ghosts and goblins. Nobody ever told you that those things aren't real and now you allow others to manipulate you with fear of invisible monsters. The ocean is not somehow losing its alkalinity. You don't even know why the ocean is alkaline in the first place. You're a moron for expecting others to entertain your self-delusion.

sealover wrote: Here is where you went FULL retard:

5. "Life is acidic... Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations to survive."[/quote]
So bring it on genius. Show that I'm somehow mistaken. I can't wait for you to provide me endless mockery ammunition.

sealover wrote: You are explicitly claiming that if the ocean really did become acidic, "life would thrive like never before."

Start showing me to be wrong, genius. If you are certain that I can't possibly be right, then I'll drink an ounce of lime juice (pH 2) while you drink an ounce of Drain-O (pH 12) and we'll both wince at the same deviation from pH 7.

You are such a genius for doing this little test with me and putting me in my place.

sealover wrote: The "Debunking" thing is a meaningless little manifesto

Did you just pivot completely off topic without having supported a single thing? Why yes, you did!

FYI, the "Debunking Signature" was inspired by tmiddles who would claim that arguments that he couldn't rebut were somehow "debunked" in his signature. His signature was a block of gibberish. So, I made a bunch of debunks for oft-repeated leftist crap so that people could put a link to the lot in their signatures, and then write in their posts that argument X "is debunked in my signature."

You can blame a cowardly leftist who behaves as you do, i.e. mockingly dismisses arguments that he can't rebut, for the Debunking Signature we have today. Enjoy.

sealover wrote: ("Natural geologic processes maintain an alkaline ocean"). There is no mention of alkalinity or acid neutralizing capacity, ...

... because no such mention is needed. Learn why the ocean is alkaline. If you can't learn that then try learning at least something.

sealover wrote: Marine organisms aren't being impacted by hydrogen ions affecting their physiology. They are being impacted by the diminished availability of carbonate ion in solution.

Nope. Marine organisms aren't being affected whatsoever by the ocean's completely stable supply of alkalinity. The only reason you believe that the ocean is somehow being depleted of its alkalinity is because you are extremely gullible.

sealover wrote: The only thing "debunked" in the little manifesto is any possible credibility IBdaMann might have in a discussion about ocean "acidification".

It's not a manifesto. It's a signature item. The intention is to put a link to the debunk in one's signature and write in your post "this is debunked in my signature". I know that you have never been able to get things to work on this website and I've never seen you use a signature so I get it if you don't understand exactly how this would work.

sealover wrote: All he offers are semantic word games about the term "acidifying".

Gotcha!

sealover wrote:"So, Mr. Chemistry genius..", how exactly does water act as a buffer?

Sure. Whenever the term buffer is used, it is in reference to a solution that resists changes in pH. Notice that the term buffer refers to the solution and not to the components of the solution. Water is the solvent in all aqueous solutions that are buffers. Whenever an aqueous solution is acting as a buffer, its constituent parts are acting as a buffer.

I realize that what I just wrote was some pretty advanced material, and it might take some time for you to digest and understand it, but you should always feel free to bring me your questions and to come to me with the hard stuff.

sealover wrote: Sea water is different, having about 100 times as much hydroxide ion as hydrogen ion in solution.

As you will notice, the increase is exponential, as we have covered previously.

sealover wrote: But hydroxide ion is not what provides more than 99% of sea water's buffering capacity. Bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions are what buffer sea water, with a very very small contribution from other oxyanions.

Yes.

Where do you imagine the ocean gets these bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions?


sealover wrote: Bicarbonate and carbonate are both oxyanion conjugate bases of carbonic acid, a very weak acid. I can't wait to see these guys come back and claim that they taught ME that.

Nope. What I taught you is that sea water evaporates, and that it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere when it does. Unfortunately your religion doesn't allow you to accept this, finding it to be sacrilege.

Are there any updates on your subforum? I wish to flock to your censorship. I'm hoping I can be banned before Into the Night gets banned.
Edited on 14-07-2024 03:54
RE: "Carbonic acid" 20 minutes in..14-07-2024 16:59
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
sealover wrote:
one more attempt to attach a file

The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions.

The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification").

The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted.

Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce.

Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life.

Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks.

Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file



A little more than two years ago I posted this. It was my third post, less than 20 minutes after my very first post on this website.

"Carbonic acid" was correctly identified then, and always.

Parrot Boy had already stopped calling it "carbolic acid" before I arrived.

It was when I went back to look at the trolling history that I saw how consistently he made the mistake in the past, calling it "carbolic acid"

A few days ago I decided to take a risk I had never taken before, a risk I still discourage any others from taking, and I opened up the troll links associated with the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" thing.

Again, I saw the multiple references to "carbolic acid". It reminded me that Parrot Boy knew so little about chemistry that he kept calling carbonic acid by the wrong name.

"Of course, if you had only said something when you first saw his oversight rather than having waited until you finally learned that information yourself, we'd clearly have a different story." - IBdaMann

For months, I DID try to say something when I first saw his many, many oversights. Tried to point out that sulfate reduction IS real ("Sulfate cannot be reduced" says Parrot Boy) and many other points of BASIC chemistry.

He kept trolling my every post with anti scientific assertions. Each time I tried to point out the oversights, all of them unforced errors since nobody ASKED him to make an idiot of himself ("There is no such thing as oxidation in chemistry"...) It was pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion.

Especially since he is more than just an utterly incompetent wannabe "chemist".

He is also a very ugly troll who reflexively throws INSULTS, makes way too many FALSE ACCUSATIONS, and is a pathological LIAR.

He had nothing of value to contribute, and he was unwilling to learn anything - not even from having his own egregious errors pointed out.

It gets to the point where one doesn't bother responding any more.

Opening up the website, one typically sees that nearly EVERY "last post" on EVERY thread is either IBdaMann or Into the Night.

I am clearly not the only one who doesn't bother responding anymore.

You can count on one hand the number of members who still bother responding.

Out of the more than 1700 members who WANTED to be able to have a rational discussion and decided that this website is not the place to try to do it.

Regarding my third post here (the one above from two years ago), I never DID figure out how to attach any files. "Cut and paste" never happened. Not once.
14-07-2024 19:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote:. A few days ago I decided to take a risk I had never taken before, a risk I still discourage any others from taking, and I opened up the troll links associated with the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" thing.

Finally you open up and talk candidly about your fear of learning. You refer to it as a "risk." The greatest threat to any religion is learning, and I think you have already started to realize that the many previous warmizombies who originally came to Climate-Debate to preach their Climate faith, just as you did, ended up learning what you are learning and ultimately abandoned their faiths in recognition of all of the silly physics violations and obligatory science illiteracy.

In your case, how long do you suppose you will hold out denying that water evaporates? Your particular principal point of proselytizing is the silly religious dogma of ocean alkalinity depletion. No rational adult has any reason to believe that the ocean's alkalinity is discernibly changing, yet your life seems to be dedicated to finding "solutions" to this non-existent bogey.

I'm totally sympathetic to your pain; it is tough to discover that you've been living under one or more egregious misconceptions. In your case, reading the entries in the Debunking Signature are a guarantee that you will be faced with several of your current egregious misconceptions. That cannot be a cheerful prospect.

Nonetheless, when you finally realize that you were silly to believe that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow being depleted, one of the results will be that you will stop proselytizing that topic here on Climate-Debate.

The same is true for your silly belief that Earth's temperature is somehow changing. You are only able to cling to this belief because of your mathematical incompetence. If you were to learn statistical mathematics to any degree of proficiency, your Global Warming faith will not survive, and your proselytizing of that belief on Climate-Debate would come to an end as well.

You can review the poster history of this site and see just how many no longer hold the same silly Climate religious beliefs they once did. A religion based on physics and chemistry violations cannot long withstand the learning of science and chemistry.

Water evaporates. Your faith cannot reconcile this. Your faith is doomed. The good news is that soon you will be free. As human nature goes, you will still think of me as a "troll" and you will probably never thank me, but you will be free.

Enjoy.
14-07-2024 20:41
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

sealover, the ocean has never acidified.

You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science.

Ocean Acidification Debunked

Into the Night's comments

Coral Bleaching Debunked


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

from: "Into the Night's comments" (blue link at top of post)

I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

I FINALLY looked at these links, after two years.

the "Into the Night's comments" were quite revealing.

NO WONDER he gave such an ignorant reply to the perfectly correct claim that one drop of acid added to pure water will cause a very large decrease in pH.

From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.


"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

The buffering capacity of sea water arises from the presence of oxyanions of weak acids, with bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions providing the overwhelming majority of the ocean's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity).

The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid, and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide, confirms the DISGUSTING DISHONESTY of the final words from "Into the Night's comments"

"These idiots aren't even chemists. I am... among other things."

What an effing LIAR! A "chemist" who says "water is a buffer" for "carbolic acid" formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water.

Liars disgust me.

Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

"You obviously don't know anything about chemistry."

Says the guy who tells us

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."
- Into the Night (aka Parrot Boy)
Page 12 of 13<<<10111213>





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