Remember me
▼ Content

Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean



Page 13 of 16<<<1112131415>>>
15-07-2024 05:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Are you back to spamming the board ... again?
15-07-2024 05:45
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Im a BM wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]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)

The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".


Regarding the post at the top, this was IBdaMann greeting me as I put up my first posts at this website.

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

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)
15-07-2024 15:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Did I forget to mention that Into the Night is a disgusting LIAR?

Are you back to spamming the board ... again?


So ... I take that as a "yes."
17-07-2024 06:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemial.
Im a BM wrote:
I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

You deny chemistry. You deny science. You have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge of acid-base chemistry, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Im a BM wrote:
Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

Chemistry is not a research, paper, book, pamphlet, quote, or citation.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

No, it won't.
Im a BM wrote:
From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

Chemistry is not omniscience.
Im a BM wrote:
"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

No, it isn't. A very small amount of CO2 in water will form carbolic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Yes it does.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.

It forms from water and carbon dioxide. It also dissolves back INTO water and carbon dioxide.
Im a BM 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).

Nope. You obviously don't know what a buffer is. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as "alkalinity as an acid neutralizing capacity".
Im a BM wrote:
The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid,

It is.
Im a BM wrote:
and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide,

It does, when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

You obviously don't know any chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Liars disgust me.

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

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

I did not lie at all. I happen to be a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives.
Im a BM wrote:
"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

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

You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
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."

Which demonstrates that you don't know anything about chemistry. You don't even know what a buffer is, or even the chemistry of carbon dioxide.


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
17-07-2024 07:44
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Even NOW he says that it is "carbolic" acid that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.

What makes Into the Night call himself a "chemist"?

And why does he insist on trolling about a subject that he does not comprehend in the slightest?

IBdaMann tried to bail out Into the Night, claiming that ITN must obviously KNOW the difference between carbolic acid and carbonic acid, and it was just a one-off typo. GasGuzzler offered the possible cover of AI voice recognition failing or something.

But the Into the Night doubles down on the ABSURD claims regarding the chemistry of carbon dioxide in sea water. Insists that it is CARBOLIC acid that forms. AND doubles down on the absurd claim that "water itself is a buffer for acid." Insists that the pH of pure water does NOT decrease much when a single drop of acid is added to a liter of it.

I am certain that Into the Night has nothing in his education/experience that qualifies him to call himself a "chemist"

STILL insists that water itself is a buffer for the "carbolic" acid that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The comments to "debunk" ocean acidification included no mention of those things in water that really ARE buffers for acid. Bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, for example, are not part of "water itself".

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemial.
Im a BM wrote:
I have already done quite well at learning chemistry and other basic science.

You deny chemistry. You deny science. You have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge of acid-base chemistry, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Im a BM wrote:
Many other chemists, literally thousands, cite my published chemistry research.

Chemistry is not a research, paper, book, pamphlet, quote, or citation.
Im a BM wrote:
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.

No, it won't.

Im a BM wrote:
From the omniscience of a self identified "chemist" known here as Into the Night

Chemistry is not omniscience.
Im a BM wrote:
"A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid."

THIS CLAIM IS ABSURD!

No, it isn't. A very small amount of CO2 in water will form carbolic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, aka "phenol" "phenolic acid" or "benzenol", does NOT form from carbon dioxide combining with water.

Yes it does.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbolic acid, chemical formula C6H5OH, has NOTHING to do with sea water or carbon dioxide.

It forms from water and carbon dioxide. It also dissolves back INTO water and carbon dioxide.

Im a BM 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).

Nope. You obviously don't know what a buffer is. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as "alkalinity as an acid neutralizing capacity".
Im a BM wrote:
The absurd claim that water is a buffer for ANY acid,

It is.

Im a BM wrote:
and the assertion that it is CARBOLIC acid forming from carbon dioxide,

It does, when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

You obviously don't know any chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Liars disgust me.

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

Lies about being a chemist. Disgusting.

I did not lie at all. I happen to be a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives.
Im a BM wrote:
"Go and learn some science" was the first thing he ever said to me.

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

You don't.
Im a BM wrote:
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."

Which demonstrates that you don't know anything about chemistry. You don't even know what a buffer is, or even the chemistry of carbon dioxide.
17-07-2024 09:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: [b]Even NOW he says that it is "carbolic" acid that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.


So make two posts. One that gives an overview of carbonic acid and its relationship to ocean water. Another that discusses carbolic acid and why it matters in the world.

That would be a solid contribution.
17-07-2024 10:51
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Even NOW he says that it is "carbolic" acid that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.


So make two posts. One that gives an overview of carbonic acid and its relationship to ocean water. Another that discusses carbolic acid and why it matters in the world.

That would be a solid contribution.



Branner came back for a visit today.

I wonder what he did.

I know what he DIDN'T do.

A "solid contribution"?

Let's see... I first learned about carbolic acid when I was in sixth grade.

I was reading a book about the history of medical science.

There was an old sketch from the Pasteur era, when doctors had finallyfigured out that disease can be spread by microscopic germs. Germs which could be killed with certain chemicals.

The sketch was of a doctor spraying a solution of carbolic acid over the open wound during surgery. Carbonic acid is a very poor disinfectant, at best.

I had already learned, in sixth grade, that it was CARBONIC acid that formed from carbon dioxide.

Did you read Into the Night's post?

Aren't you even curious to know what he thinks he's writing about?

He did NOT know the difference between carbonic and carbolic acid.

He only wrote "Carbolic acid is not carbonic acid" because it is his reflex to answer with a contrarian negation of a point that was not made.

I did not say "carbolic acid IS carbonic acid", to be given a helpful correction.

I spelled out how CARBONIC acid is formed from CO2, and asked if I should call it "carbolic" acid, as does the local genius.

As close as he gets to science is to identify two words out of a statement by someone else, and then turn it into a "Word(1) is not word(2)"

Since he didn't know what EITHER carbolic acid or carbonic acid is, he didn't notice his error even after it was pointed out multiple times.

Perhaps he will tell us again that "carbolic acid is not carbonic acid".

Then any question asking him to specify how carbolic acid could possibly form from carbon dioxide and water, he will simply reply "RQAA".

Any how can water itself possibly act as a buffer for acid, Into the Night?

What possible mechanism would allow water molecules to prevent the pH from changing when acid is added? Water itself. The pure stuff, a liter of which is subjected to one drop of added acid, and Into the Night assures us that I am wrong about it having virtually no buffering capacity against pH change. Pure water is so highly buffered against pH change that the pH change resulting from one drop of acid added to a liter of [b]sea water
would be "more pronounced" according to the trolls.
17-07-2024 20:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: Let's see... I first learned about carbolic acid when I was in sixth grade.

I'm not well read on phenol. I like dopamine, seratonin and endorphins, though.

Im a BM wrote: I was reading a book about the history of medical science.

There was an old sketch from the Pasteur era, when doctors had finallyfigured out that disease can be spread by microscopic germs. Germs which could be killed with certain chemicals.

The sketch was of a doctor spraying a solution of carbolic acid over the open wound during surgery.

I remember reading that as well. It was Joseph Lister who did that, but I thought he used alcohol, and that is why we have Listerine, but I see that he used phenol, not alcohol to sterilize. Interesting.

Im a BM wrote: Carbonic acid is a very poor disinfectant, at best.

I had already learned, in sixth grade, that it was CARBONIC acid that formed from carbon dioxide.

I also learned what happens when that acidic solution evaporates, i.e. it's a CO2 cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere gets into precipitation making carbonic acid, evaporates and returns to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Did you read Into the Night's post?

I'm far more familiar with my own posts; I know what I mean when I write something. Into the Night and I use different terms on many topics, which is why you have to address content. If a particular term doesn't sit right with you, you should specifically discuss it.

I'll tell you that you are making an error if you think that whatever terms you learned are somehow universal. I learned the hard way that what I thought are standard science and math terms are almost always expressed differently by engineers, government workers and industry specialists. If you are getting hung up on a word/term, that's fine, but discuss it first. I'm looking for validity, and then soundness, of arguments.

Im a BM wrote:Aren't you even curious to know what he thinks he's writing about?

I might be curious if he were making an argument. He's not. He's explaining to you why he doesn't accept your affirmative argument, which isn't an argument so much as it is an unsupported conclusion.

Let's review momentarily. You insist that:

1. The ocean is losing its alkalinity.
2. Earth's average equilibrium temperature is rising.
3. Climate Change is making the world worse.

These are the conclusions that you are supposed to be supporting with your arguments, but you are not.

You are, instead, making the case that Into the Night was mistaken about something. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are successful and you triumph. Which of the three conclusions above will you be supporting?


Im a BM wrote: Perhaps he will tell us again that "carbolic acid is not carbonic acid".

When he correctly does, where will that leave us?

Im a BM wrote: What possible mechanism would allow water molecules to prevent the pH from changing when acid is added?

It doesn't have to prevent; it has to resist. Huge water quantities do this as well. If you need the resistance to be independent of quantity then that's fine also, but you should specify this, otherwise the limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is.
17-07-2024 22:56
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
"..but I thought he used alcohol, and that is why we have Listerine, but I see that he used phenol, not alcohol, to sterilize." - IBdaMann

He DID use alcohol. Phenols are a subset of alcohols. All phenols are alcohols, but not all alcohols are phenols. Something you or your second rate sidekick would have learned if you ever studied chemistry.

Or you had multiple opportunities more recently to learn this, as it came up repeatedly in the ridiculous "lignin is a carbohydrate" thing.

Phenols are aromatic alcohols. All other alcohols are aliphatic alcohols.

And no word game can transform the chemistry of lignin to make it possible to classify it as a carbohydrate.

Physical properties of carbonic acid versus dissolved carbon dioxide:

Less than 1% of the CO2 that dissolves in water forms a covalent bond to water molecules to become something quite different - carbonic acid.

The more than 99% of dissolved CO2 that remains as CO2 is free to evaporate as a natural gas at ambient temperature.

However, the rate at which CO2 goes from the sea into the atmosphere is slower than the rate at which CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea.

The sea is a net "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dissolved carbon dioxide is not what makes the pH of natural rainfall about 5.6, slightly acidic. It is the less than 1% of dissolved carbon dioxide transformed into carbonic acid that supplies the protons in solution.

Unlike carbon dioxide, carbonic acid is not a gas. It is very difficult to get it into the vapor phase at ambient temperature. The sea would have to boil.

Evaporation does NOT neutralize any acid.

"The limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is."

Less than 1% of the ocean's alkalinity (i.e. pH buffering capacity) comes from its water content. The tiny fraction of water molecules that dissociate to release hydroxide into solution is negligible compared to the other buffers present. The other 99+% comes from oxyanions of weak acids, mainly bicarbonate ions and some from carbonate ions. (can't wait to see Into the Night say "bicarbonate is not a chemical" again, as if that meant something relevant to ANY discussion)

Back to the one drop of acid in one liter of pure water, which IBdaMann and Into the Night both agree is well buffered against significant pH change.

Regardless of the concentration of acid used to make the one drop, the pH of the pure water WILL decrease.

If you add that drop of acid to 100 liters of pure water, the pH will still drop, but not as much. That one drop of acid in a MILLION liters of pure water will lower the pH, but maybe not enough to measure the difference.

But the "limitless" ocean water is up against a "limitless" atmosphere. It isn't just one drop of acid being added.

And the 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydroxide ion in pure water is so tiny it makes pure water the LEAST buffered wet stuff you can find.

And I'm only bothering to respond to IBdaMann because I want to see Parrot Boy triple down and insist that carbon dioxide DOES form carbolic acid in water.

And then claim to have knowledge of chemistry far superior to my own.

PARROT POOP FOREVER!


IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Let's see... I first learned about carbolic acid when I was in sixth grade.

I'm not well read on phenol. I like dopamine, seratonin and endorphins, though.

Im a BM wrote: I was reading a book about the history of medical science.

There was an old sketch from the Pasteur era, when doctors had finally figured out that disease can be spread by microscopic germs. Germs which could be killed with certain chemicals.

The sketch was of a doctor spraying a solution of carbolic acid over the open wound during surgery.

I remember reading that as well. It was Joseph Lister who did that, but I thought he used alcohol, and that is why we have Listerine, but I see that he used phenol, not alcohol to sterilize. Interesting.

Im a BM wrote: Carbonic acid is a very poor disinfectant, at best.

I had already learned, in sixth grade, that it was CARBONIC acid that formed from carbon dioxide.

I also learned what happens when that acidic solution evaporates, i.e. it's a CO2 cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere gets into precipitation making carbonic acid, evaporates and returns to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Did you read Into the Night's post?

I'm far more familiar with my own posts; I know what I mean when I write something. Into the Night and I use different terms on many topics, which is why you have to address content. If a particular term doesn't sit right with you, you should specifically discuss it.

I'll tell you that you are making an error if you think that whatever terms you learned are somehow universal. I learned the hard way that what I thought are standard science and math terms are almost always expressed differently by engineers, government workers and industry specialists. If you are getting hung up on a word/term, that's fine, but discuss it first. I'm looking for validity, and then soundness, of arguments.

Im a BM wrote:Aren't you even curious to know what he thinks he's writing about?

I might be curious if he were making an argument. He's not. He's explaining to you why he doesn't accept your affirmative argument, which isn't an argument so much as it is an unsupported conclusion.

Let's review momentarily. You insist that:

1. The ocean is losing its alkalinity.
2. Earth's average equilibrium temperature is rising.
3. Climate Change is making the world worse.

These are the conclusions that you are supposed to be supporting with your arguments, but you are not.

You are, instead, making the case that Into the Night was mistaken about something. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are successful and you triumph. Which of the three conclusions above will you be supporting?


Im a BM wrote: Perhaps he will tell us again that "carbolic acid is not carbonic acid".

When he correctly does, where will that leave us?

Im a BM wrote: What possible mechanism would allow water molecules to prevent the pH from changing when acid is added?

It doesn't have to prevent; it has to resist. Huge water quantities do this as well. If you need the resistance to be independent of quantity then that's fine also, but you should specify this, otherwise the limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is.
18-07-2024 05:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: He DID use alcohol. Phenols are a subset of alcohols. All phenols are alcohols, but not all alcohols are phenols.

I did not know this. Now I do. Thank you.

Im a BM wrote: Or you had multiple opportunities more recently to learn this, as it came up repeatedly in the ridiculous "lignin is a carbohydrate" thing.

I didn't participate in this as much, but I did want to make mention that different people have different definitions of lignin.

Im a BM wrote: And no word game can transform the chemistry of lignin to make it possible to classify it as a carbohydrate.

At some point you're going to have to get off your schtick of referring to people who have different operating definitions as "playing word games." At least they have operating definitions and can exchange ideas on a topic.

A carbohydrate is an organic (carbon-based) compound composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Guess what lignin is. Do you know what a "subset" is? You are using a definition that differs from "subset of." No one is attacking you for doing so, but everything that is a member of a subset is a member of the superset. Lignin is a carbohydrate by virtue of being an organic compound composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen; however if you wish to strenuously distinguish that subset from the superset then feel free to do so, but don't deny the operating definitions. *OR* you can state for the record your specific operating definition for purposes of discussion.

Im a BM wrote: However, the rate at which CO2 goes from the sea into the atmosphere is slower than the rate at which CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea.

You're going to have to show this.

Im a BM wrote: The sea is a net "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You are describing the sea as a vacuum cleaner that is actively sucking up atmospheric CO2, and I'm not buying it. Everything appears to be in equilibrium. Show me that it isn't.

Im a BM wrote: Unlike carbon dioxide, carbonic acid is not a gas. It is very difficult to get it into the vapor phase at ambient temperature. The sea would have to boil.

This doesn't make any sense. All aqueous solutions evaporate. Do we need to discuss evaporation?

Im a BM wrote:Evaporation does NOT neutralize any acid.

Evaporation destroys all acids. Your assertion is not compatible with mine; one of us is incorrect.

Shall I whip up some carbonic acid, let it evaporate completely and see if I still have carbonic acid?

"The limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is."

Im a BM wrote: Less than 1% of the ocean's alkalinity (i.e. pH buffering capacity) comes from its water content.

OK, and when we consider that across all of the ocean water, that's a lot of buffering capacity in the ocean just from the water.

Im a BM wrote: The tiny fraction of water molecules that dissociate to release hydroxide into solution is negligible compared to the other buffers present.

I don't disagree. However, the quantity of other buffers present is negligible compared to the water in the ocean.

Im a BM wrote: The other 99+% comes from oxyanions of weak acids, mainly bicarbonate ions and some from carbonate ions.

I'm totally with you. Ocean water is an aqueous solution that is mostly water, but the solutes provide the vast bulk of the buffering.

The issue comes in talking about the water component (the solvent) because we jump back and forth between discussing ocean water and pure water to draw comparisons. If those comparisons are to hold any meaning, we need to compare apples to apples.

Im a BM wrote:Back to the one drop of acid in one liter of pure water, which IBdaMann and Into the Night both agree is well buffered against significant pH change.

Let's start over on this one, and we can have our same disagreement, but I want to make sure this time that we are talking about the same thing (I'll take the hit for my previous usage of prepositions).

We have a one-gallon jug of pure water (jug A) and a one gallon jug of ocean water (jug
.

We place one drop of magic pH 0 acid in each jug.

In jug A there will be a certain amount of neutralization of the acid and a certain decrease in the pH of the water.

In jug B there will be an exponentially greater neutralization of the acid as compared to jug A and only a logarithm of jug A's pH decrease in jug B.

I should have worded it this way in the first place.

Im a BM wrote: Regardless of the concentration of acid used to make the one drop, the pH of the pure water WILL decrease.

The pH of the ocean water will decrease as well, but very little, and perhaps too little to be detected with existing instrumentation. The buffering will resist, not prevent, pH decrease.


Im a BM wrote: And the 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydroxide ion in pure water is so tiny it makes pure water the LEAST buffered wet stuff you can find.

But it's not zero. That's the main point here.

You made some good points above. Working definitions would always be welcome.
Edited on 18-07-2024 05:07
18-07-2024 11:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
"..but I thought he used alcohol, and that is why we have Listerine, but I see that he used phenol, not alcohol, to sterilize." - IBdaMann

He DID use alcohol. Phenols are a subset of alcohols. All phenols are alcohols, but not all alcohols are phenols. Something you or your second rate sidekick would have learned if you ever studied chemistry.

Phenol is not alcohol.
Im a BM wrote:
Or you had multiple opportunities more recently to learn this, as it came up repeatedly in the ridiculous "lignin is a carbohydrate" thing.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
Im a BM wrote:
Phenols are aromatic alcohols. All other alcohols are aliphatic alcohols.

Phenol is not alcohol.
Im a BM wrote:
And no word game can transform the chemistry of lignin to make it possible to classify it as a carbohydrate.

Lignin is a carbohydrate. No word game is necessary. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
Physical properties of carbonic acid versus dissolved carbon dioxide:

Less than 1% of the CO2 that dissolves in water forms a covalent bond to water molecules to become something quite different - carbonic acid.

Carbolic acid, dummy.
Im a BM wrote:
The more than 99% of dissolved CO2 that remains as CO2 is free to evaporate as a natural gas at ambient temperature.

However, the rate at which CO2 goes from the sea into the atmosphere is slower than the rate at which CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea.

Nope. It's the same either direction.
Im a BM wrote:
The sea is a net "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Nope. It's the same either direction.
Im a BM wrote:
Dissolved carbon dioxide is not what makes the pH of natural rainfall about 5.6, slightly acidic. It is the less than 1% of dissolved carbon dioxide transformed into carbonic acid that supplies the protons in solution.

Carbolic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Unlike carbon dioxide, carbonic acid is not a gas. It is very difficult to get it into the vapor phase at ambient temperature. The sea would have to boil.

Carbolic acid. And there are times when the seas boil.
Im a BM wrote:
Evaporation does NOT neutralize any acid.

"The limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is."

Less than 1% of the ocean's alkalinity (i.e. pH buffering capacity) comes from its water content. The tiny fraction of water molecules that dissociate to release hydroxide into solution is negligible compared to the other buffers present. The other 99+% comes from oxyanions of weak acids, mainly bicarbonate ions and some from carbonate ions. (can't wait to see Into the Night say "bicarbonate is not a chemical" again, as if that meant something relevant to ANY discussion)

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydroxide is not a chemical. There is no such quantity as 'alkalinity'. Oxyanion is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Back to the one drop of acid in one liter of pure water, which IBdaMann and Into the Night both agree is well buffered against significant pH change.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Regardless of the concentration of acid used to make the one drop, the pH of the pure water WILL decrease.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you add that drop of acid to 100 liters of pure water, the pH will still drop, but not as much. That one drop of acid in a MILLION liters of pure water will lower the pH, but maybe not enough to measure the difference.

But the "limitless" ocean water is up against a "limitless" atmosphere. It isn't just one drop of acid being added.

You don't get to misquote IBDaMann or anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
And the 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydroxide ion in pure water is so tiny it makes pure water the LEAST buffered wet stuff you can find.

Water is a buffer for both acid and alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
And I'm only bothering to respond to IBdaMann because I want to see Parrot Boy triple down and insist that carbon dioxide DOES form carbolic acid in water.

It does.
Im a BM wrote:
And then claim to have knowledge of chemistry far superior to my own.

I do. You have demonstrated that time and time again.


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
18-07-2024 16:54
sealover
★★★★☆
(1775)
A new viewer, or a returning viewer from the past, probably noticed that just two members put up nearly ALL the "Last posts" on the 15 most recently active threads.

The new viewer immediately realizes that this must be a "dead" website where almost nobody participates in any discussions.. The 15 most recently active threads usually have "Last posts" going back several days.

The returning viewer immediately recognizes that the same two trolls as usual are about the only ones posting anything this week. A check back on the old familiar website, just in case something interesting finally developed, proves to be a waste of time again.

Sealover and Im a BM are disappointed in the website owner/administrator and absentee moderator.

After nearly five months, Jeppe Branner came back and logged in.

I thought he might have wanted to post a message or send a message.

I don't think we will be getting a moderated subforum any time soon.


So, in the post below, Into the Night TRIPLES DOWN on the "carbolic" acid.

The FIRST time that I explained to him that it is CARBONIC acid, not "carbolic" acid, that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water was more than two years ago.

Since virtually every time I post it gets buried in troll feces, new viewers or returning viewers won't see my name listed for the "Last post" on any threads displayed when they open the website.

It would be hard to tell that if they wanted, they could engage in discussion with a published PhD scientist who isn't just looking for an insult fest.

Okay, so Branner won't even respond to e mails or PMs. But he was here this week, so I can't kid myself that he simply doesn't know yet.

I will check in on this website now and then.

Check to see if any new member joined, or if any old member returned who wants to engage in rational discussion of environmental science.

Check in now and then to see if the absentee moderator ever responded.

IBdaMann and Into the Night do not allow for rational discussion.

I won't bother posting again until something changes.




Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"..but I thought he used alcohol, and that is why we have Listerine, but I see that he used phenol, not alcohol, to sterilize." - IBdaMann

He DID use alcohol. Phenols are a subset of alcohols. All phenols are alcohols, but not all alcohols are phenols. Something you or your second rate sidekick would have learned if you ever studied chemistry.

Phenol is not alcohol.
Im a BM wrote:
Or you had multiple opportunities more recently to learn this, as it came up repeatedly in the ridiculous "lignin is a carbohydrate" thing.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
Im a BM wrote:
Phenols are aromatic alcohols. All other alcohols are aliphatic alcohols.

Phenol is not alcohol.
Im a BM wrote:
And no word game can transform the chemistry of lignin to make it possible to classify it as a carbohydrate.

Lignin is a carbohydrate. No word game is necessary. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
Physical properties of carbonic acid versus dissolved carbon dioxide:

Less than 1% of the CO2 that dissolves in water forms a covalent bond to water molecules to become something quite different - carbonic acid.

Carbolic acid, dummy.
Im a BM wrote:
The more than 99% of dissolved CO2 that remains as CO2 is free to evaporate as a natural gas at ambient temperature.

However, the rate at which CO2 goes from the sea into the atmosphere is slower than the rate at which CO2 goes from the atmosphere into the sea.

Nope. It's the same either direction.
Im a BM wrote:
The sea is a net "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Nope. It's the same either direction.
Im a BM wrote:
Dissolved carbon dioxide is not what makes the pH of natural rainfall about 5.6, slightly acidic. It is the less than 1% of dissolved carbon dioxide transformed into carbonic acid that supplies the protons in solution.

Carbolic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Unlike carbon dioxide, carbonic acid is not a gas. It is very difficult to get it into the vapor phase at ambient temperature. The sea would have to boil.

Carbolic acid. And there are times when the seas boil.
Im a BM wrote:
Evaporation does NOT neutralize any acid.

"The limitless ocean water keeps the average ocean pH exactly where it is."

Less than 1% of the ocean's alkalinity (i.e. pH buffering capacity) comes from its water content. The tiny fraction of water molecules that dissociate to release hydroxide into solution is negligible compared to the other buffers present. The other 99+% comes from oxyanions of weak acids, mainly bicarbonate ions and some from carbonate ions. (can't wait to see Into the Night say "bicarbonate is not a chemical" again, as if that meant something relevant to ANY discussion)

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydroxide is not a chemical. There is no such quantity as 'alkalinity'. Oxyanion is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Back to the one drop of acid in one liter of pure water, which IBdaMann and Into the Night both agree is well buffered against significant pH change.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Regardless of the concentration of acid used to make the one drop, the pH of the pure water WILL decrease.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Contextomy fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you add that drop of acid to 100 liters of pure water, the pH will still drop, but not as much. That one drop of acid in a MILLION liters of pure water will lower the pH, but maybe not enough to measure the difference.

But the "limitless" ocean water is up against a "limitless" atmosphere. It isn't just one drop of acid being added.

You don't get to misquote IBDaMann or anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
And the 0.0000001 moles per liter of hydroxide ion in pure water is so tiny it makes pure water the LEAST buffered wet stuff you can find.

Water is a buffer for both acid and alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
And I'm only bothering to respond to IBdaMann because I want to see Parrot Boy triple down and insist that carbon dioxide DOES form carbolic acid in water.

It does.

Im a BM wrote:
And then claim to have knowledge of chemistry far superior to my own.

I do. You have demonstrated that time and time again.
18-07-2024 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
sealover wrote:
...deleted whining spam...
So, in the post below, Into the Night TRIPLES DOWN on the "carbolic" acid.

The FIRST time that I explained to him that it is CARBONIC acid, not "carbolic" acid, that forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water was more than two years ago.

Carbonic acid is not carbolic acid.
Carbolic acid forms when carbon dioxide dissolves in water.
sealover wrote:
...deleted whining spam...
I won't bother posting again until something changes.

I know you better than that, Robert! You need the attention too much!


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 18-07-2024 20:48
RE: Into the Night is a LIAR, not a chemist03-09-2024 20:44
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
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



Here are the best quotes from "Into the Night's comments"

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

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

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


This idiot is NOT a chemist. I am.. among other things.
04-09-2024 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
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



Here are the best quotes from "Into the Night's comments"

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

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

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


This idiot is NOT a chemist. I am.. among other things.

You are no chemist. Stop pretending.
No one is bleaching coral.


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
05-09-2024 20:53
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Please provide an unambiguous definition for the term "chemist".

You claim to be a "chemist".

You claim that I am NOT a "chemist".

Please define the term to show how it includes YOU, yet excludes ME.

I have PhD, master's and bachelor's degrees.

My chemistry research, published in peer-reviewed chemistry journals, has been cited by hundreds of other chemists in their peer-reviewed chemistry publications.

I have served as peer reviewer for peer-reviewed chemistry journals.

Help me understand how I am NOT a chemist, and yet you ARE somehow.

Surely you know how to define the term "chemist".

Trust me, I am not claiming you as a "peer".

There is no doubt that one of us IS and one of us is NOT a "chemist".


Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
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



Here are the best quotes from "Into the Night's comments"

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

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

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


This idiot is NOT a chemist. I am.. among other things.

You are no chemist. Stop pretending.
No one is bleaching coral.
05-09-2024 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Please provide an unambiguous definition for the term "chemist".

You claim to be a "chemist".

You claim that I am NOT a "chemist".

Please define the term to show how it includes YOU, yet excludes ME.

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
I have PhD, master's and bachelor's degrees.

Chemistry is not a degree, license, certification, or any other sanctification.
Im a BM wrote:
My chemistry research, published in peer-reviewed chemistry journals, has been cited by hundreds of other chemists in their peer-reviewed chemistry publications.

Chemistry is not a journal, magazine, paper, publication, website, or pamphlet. Chemistry does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
I have served as peer reviewer for peer-reviewed chemistry journals.

Chemistry does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in chemistry. Chemistry is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
Help me understand how I am NOT a chemist, and yet you ARE somehow.

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
Surely you know how to define the term "chemist".

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
Trust me, I am not claiming you as a "peer".

Irrelevance fallacy. Chemistry is not elitism.
Im a BM wrote:
There is no doubt that one of us IS and one of us is NOT a "chemist".

You are not a chemist. Chemistry is not buzzwords, or any journal or magazine or paper, it does not use consensus, it has no religion, and it has no politics.


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 05-09-2024 23:48
06-09-2024 00:26
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
A Chemist's direct observation of Carbon Dioxide acting as Greenhouse Gas

There is an absurd claim that has been repeated thousands of times on this website by the most prolific troll.

Reality check: Greenhouse gases are REAL.

I believe my own lying eyes about my personal direct observation to prove this.

During my post doctoral work at UC Berkeley, I was working in a tightly enclosed greenhouse to "label" plants with 13-C stable isotope heavy carbon.

99.9% of carbon atoms are 12-C, having 6 protons and 6 neutrons.

13-C has 6 protons and 7 neutrons, making it slightly heavier, and it accounts for less than 0.1% of all carbon atoms.

The plants weren't picking up enough 13-C, so I deliberately overshot it and gave them double ambient CO2 concentration.

I was standing right there watching all the instruments.

I could see the CO2 monitor show that I had kicked it up to 700 ppm CO2.

The temperature was regulated with an AC and thermostat, since the greenhouse had to be airtight to keep in the precious 13-C.

When it got too warm, the thermostat would turn on the AC.

After doubling the CO2 concentration within the sealed chamber, the AC started turning on a lot more frequently. I know because I had to stay there the whole time.

As the plants drew down the added 13-C CO2, bringing concentration in the chamber air back down to closer to 350 ppm, the thermostat turned on the AC much less frequently.

The only source of light/heat were the lamps above and outside the chamber, and they stayed the same the whole time.

I believe my own lying eyes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

And I have a PhD to prove it!

I also believe that ocean "acidification" is as real as the Greenhouse Effect.

I believe my own lying eyes about the water samples I collected and analyzed.

But, apparently, I am not really a "chemist".
06-09-2024 02:12
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

He could have learned what alkalinity is. A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity, or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

Once a troll, always a troll.



IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

I started reading through this but I had to stop. I'll get back to it later today. In the meantime, I was hoping you would explain something that is giving me a bad taste about this article. What does the author mean by "organic." The article uses the word "organic" more liberally than products at Walmart. As you know, carbon is an element and can't be organic, yet you have used the term, as does this article "organic carbon" like that is supposed to mean something important, just not important enough to explain it to those reading the article. Then it uses the term "organic acids" without explaining. At Costco they sell "organic" chocolate milk without explaining that either. Should I be ignoring this article or is there really something I, as the reader, need to know that the stupid author was too brain-dead to mention?

How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word "organic" in this article? I know of many meanings, but the one that I would expect from a chemist is "carbon-based" or "of life/living/alive" ... and not this silly, seemingly redundant "organic carbon" crap. Anyway, I wouldn't care one way or the other if the author would explain up front instead of presuming that his readers are all mind-readers.

Im a BM wrote:The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it. Will the author be explaining these terms or am I expected to wonder what kind of waters are synthetic waters? ... and whether or not there are oralkaline waters and what that even means? Will the paper also discuss circumacidic waters and circumbasic waters ... or only the circumneutral waters?

Im a BM wrote:It DOES give good background on "The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk)..." Recommended reading for those who have difficulty with these definitions.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it.

Im a BM wrote:But what is special about the paper is recognition that organic alkalinity is a not a negligible contributor to total alkalinity. Indeed, our understanding of alkalinity is incomplete without it.

What do chemists consider "substantive" in this case?

Im a BM wrote:Organic alkalinity is responsible for making iron available to support photosynthesis in the sea.

Seawater gets its iron from other sources; the alkalinity is incidental. Thermal vents, erosion, dust, etc. all bring iron into the ocean.
06-09-2024 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
A Chemist's direct observation of Carbon Dioxide acting as Greenhouse Gas

No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Im a BM wrote:
There is an absurd claim that has been repeated thousands of times on this website by the most prolific troll.

You could always stop, you know.
Im a BM wrote:
Reality check: Greenhouse gases are REAL.

No such thing, troll.
Im a BM wrote:
I believe my own lying eyes about my personal direct observation to prove this.

You made no direct observation of what is not possible, pretender.
Im a BM wrote:
During my post doctoral work at UC Berkeley, I was working in a tightly enclosed greenhouse to "label" plants with 13-C stable isotope heavy carbon.

You are not a doctor, pretender.
Im a BM wrote:
99.9% of carbon atoms are 12-C, having 6 protons and 6 neutrons.

13-C has 6 protons and 7 neutrons, making it slightly heavier, and it accounts for less than 0.1% of all carbon atoms.
Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The plants weren't picking up enough 13-C, so I deliberately overshot it and gave them double ambient CO2 concentration.

More fiction, pretender.
Im a BM wrote:
I was standing right there watching all the instruments.

I could see the CO2 monitor show that I had kicked it up to 700 ppm CO2.

The temperature was regulated with an AC and thermostat, since the greenhouse had to be airtight to keep in the precious 13-C.

When it got too warm, the thermostat would turn on the AC.

After doubling the CO2 concentration within the sealed chamber, the AC started turning on a lot more frequently. I know because I had to stay there the whole time.

More fiction, pretender. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or a greenhouse).
Im a BM wrote:
As the plants drew down the added 13-C CO2, bringing concentration in the chamber air back down to closer to 350 ppm, the thermostat turned on the AC much less frequently.

Making up stories won't work, pretender.
Im a BM wrote:
The only source of light/heat were the lamps above and outside the chamber, and they stayed the same the whole time.

I believe my own lying eyes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

No such thing, pretender. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Im a BM wrote:
And I have a PhD to prove it!

You don't have a PhD, and a PhD is not a proof.
Im a BM wrote:
I also believe that ocean "acidification" is as real as the Greenhouse Effect.

You can't acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
I believe my own lying eyes about the water samples I collected and analyzed.

You didn't.
Im a BM wrote:
But, apparently, I am not really a "chemist".

You aren't, pretender.


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
06-09-2024 03:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

I really don't blame his comment.
Im a BM wrote:
An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

There is no such thing as 'organic alkalinity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

It is gibber babble. There is no such thing as 'alkaline neutralizing capacity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

There is nothing to 'understand'. Gibber babble is gibber babble.
Im a BM wrote:
He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

He already knows. YOU don't! DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

You are describing yourself. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
He could have learned what alkalinity is.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Water itself IS a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
and carbonate ions

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity,

Nope. Water does that.
Im a BM wrote:
or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no increasing concentration of carbonic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
Once a troll, always a troll.

Guess you'll always be a troll then.


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
06-09-2024 23:00
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
And along an alternate universe timeline:

IBdaMann was being intellectually honest and genuinely wanted to understand the paper that he posted, even though it did NOT include the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity" in the support of a stupid word game.

He could have learned about the reality of sea water chemistry and had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

But his only goal here is to be a troll here.

So, let's pretend that organic carbon doesn't even exist and call it some kind of scientific "debate".

Let's pretend that alkalinity is NOT a measurable parameter of sea water, comprised about 99% of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions, also known as buffering capacity or acid neutralizing capacity.

And if he were scientifically literate enough to understand any of the paper, he could have even learned about ORGANIC alkalinity.

Instead, he will play some retarded word game and insist that there is no such thing as organic alkalinity.

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

I really don't blame his comment.
Im a BM wrote:
An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

There is no such thing as 'organic alkalinity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

It is gibber babble. There is no such thing as 'alkaline neutralizing capacity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

There is nothing to 'understand'. Gibber babble is gibber babble.
Im a BM wrote:
He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

He already knows. YOU don't! DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

You are describing yourself. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
He could have learned what alkalinity is.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Water itself IS a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
and carbonate ions

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity,

Nope. Water does that.
Im a BM wrote:
or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no increasing concentration of carbonic acid.
Im a BM wrote:
I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
Once a troll, always a troll.

Guess you'll always be a troll then.
06-09-2024 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
And along an alternate universe timeline:

There is no such thing as an 'alternate universe'. Buzzword fallacy. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann was being intellectually honest and genuinely wanted to understand the paper that he posted, even though it did NOT include the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity" in the support of a stupid word game.

There is no such thing as 'alkaline neutralizing capacity". Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
He could have learned about the reality of sea water chemistry and had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

You are not discussing chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
But his only goal here is to be a troll here.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
So, let's pretend that organic carbon doesn't even exist and call it some kind of scientific "debate".

Carbon isn't organic. Science is not a debate.
Im a BM wrote:
Let's pretend that alkalinity is NOT a measurable parameter of sea water, comprised about 99% of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions, also known as buffering capacity or acid neutralizing capacity.
Alkalinity is not a measurement or a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'buffering capacity'. There is no such thing as 'acid neutralizing capacity'. Buzzword fallacies.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And if he were scientifically literate enough to understand any of the paper, he could have even learned about ORGANIC alkalinity.

There is no such thing as 'organic alkalinity'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Instead, he will play some retarded word game and insist that there is no such thing as organic alkalinity.

Inversion fallacy. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR WORD GAMES ON 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
07-09-2024 18:11
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Im a BM wrote:
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

He could have learned what alkalinity is. A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity, or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

Once a troll, always a troll.



IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

I started reading through this but I had to stop. I'll get back to it later today. In the meantime, I was hoping you would explain something that is giving me a bad taste about this article. What does the author mean by "organic." The article uses the word "organic" more liberally than products at Walmart. As you know, carbon is an element and can't be organic, yet you have used the term, as does this article "organic carbon" like that is supposed to mean something important, just not important enough to explain it to those reading the article. Then it uses the term "organic acids" without explaining. At Costco they sell "organic" chocolate milk without explaining that either. Should I be ignoring this article or is there really something I, as the reader, need to know that the stupid author was too brain-dead to mention?

How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word "organic" in this article? I know of many meanings, but the one that I would expect from a chemist is "carbon-based" or "of life/living/alive" ... and not this silly, seemingly redundant "organic carbon" crap. Anyway, I wouldn't care one way or the other if the author would explain up front instead of presuming that his readers are all mind-readers.

Im a BM wrote:The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it. Will the author be explaining these terms or am I expected to wonder what kind of waters are synthetic waters? ... and whether or not there are oralkaline waters and what that even means? Will the paper also discuss circumacidic waters and circumbasic waters ... or only the circumneutral waters?

Im a BM wrote:It DOES give good background on "The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk)..." Recommended reading for those who have difficulty with these definitions.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it.

Im a BM wrote:But what is special about the paper is recognition that organic alkalinity is a not a negligible contributor to total alkalinity. Indeed, our understanding of alkalinity is incomplete without it.

What do chemists consider "substantive" in this case?

Im a BM wrote:Organic alkalinity is responsible for making iron available to support photosynthesis in the sea.

Seawater gets its iron from other sources; the alkalinity is incidental. Thermal vents, erosion, dust, etc. all bring iron into the ocean.



"How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word 'organic' in this article?"

"Then it uses the term 'organic acids' without explaining."

"...and not this silly, seemingly redundant, 'organic carbon' crap."

"...presuming that his readers are all mind readers."


You, as the reader, are expected to be scientifically literate enough to understand the word "organic" in this article.

The term "organic acids" is so common, with 150 years of usage among scientists, that no research article needs to repeat the definition again.

The "'organic carbon' crap" is what you will find in chemistry research articles.

Readers of peer-reviewed scientific articles are not expected to be mind readers.

Readers ARE presumed to be scientifically literate enough to understand BASIC terms like "organic", "organic carbon", "organic acid", and even "organic alkalinity".

Referring to the "stupid author" as being the legitimate object of grievance because he failed to spoon feed remedial education for the potential reader who never studied enough chemistry to get anything out of the article anyway...

No, the failure here is the arrogance of the READER.

But, isn't IBdaMann omniscient about all things scientific?

Shouldn't he be explaining to the author what the words REALLY mean?

Maybe he will get a Nobel Prize for proving that there is no such thing as organic carbon.
08-09-2024 02:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: You, as the reader, are expected to be scientifically literate enough to understand the word "organic" in this article.

Incorrect. This is what gives you away as a scientifically illiterate moron. Every author must define his terms. Every single one. Almost every term is used in many different ways all around the world. I detailed for you the actual chemistry meaning/usage several times but you have shown repeatedly that you are too stupid to learn. All you understand is your Peace Corps meaning ... which you are probably lying about since you lie about so many other things just to get attention. Why you felt compelled to lie about Dominican coral reefs is beyond me, but suffice to say that you have absolutely zero credibility and it doesn't appear that you understand much chemistry. You don't even know what "organic" means. With regard to your operating definition, you could only give what you thought were some examples, not any definition. You also won't clarify anything or define your terms, i.e. you hope beyond hope that no one will ask you any questions because you haven't the vaguest clue what you are talking about.

Did I miss anything?

Im a BM wrote: The term "organic acids" is so common,

Nice pivot. The term in question is your "organic carbon." There is no such thing. Carbon is carbon. When you are asked what you could possibly mean by this (because carbon makes something organic, not the other way around), you panic because you don't know; you haven't any idea why you spew this term, other than to OBEY your religion that some forms of carbon are "good" while others are "evil", all dependent on whether they are glorified or demonized by your stupid religious faith.

Im a BM wrote: The "'organic carbon' crap" is what you will find in chemistry research articles.

Any scientifically illiterate moron that can bang on a keyboard can write an "article." What you won't find is any "organic carbon" crap in any chemistry.

I was just looking at the periodic table and I was having difficulty locating the "organic carbon" it defines. Would you mind pointing it out to me, oh brilliant geobiogammatrist?



Im a BM wrote: Readers of peer-reviewed scientific articles are not expected to be mind readers.

Learn what "peer reviewed" means. It has nothing to do with science, so as such, I guess you wouldn't know then, so I give you a pass this time.

Seriously, learn what "peer reviewed" means. Nobody owns science. Nobody's permission is required to make science or to conduct research.

Im a BM wrote: Referring to the "stupid author" as being the legitimate object of grievance because he failed to spoon feed remedial education for the potential reader who never studied enough chemistry to get anything out of the article anyway...

When you give yourself away, you do so in spades. All authors must define all their terms. You are a moron for thinking otherwise.
08-09-2024 03:31
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

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

The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

"Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

Because that is not how scientists communicate in research papers.

For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You just don't see folks wasting time and space on what everyone should already know. Or at least know how to figure out by themselves.


IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: You, as the reader, are expected to be scientifically literate enough to understand the word "organic" in this article.

Incorrect. This is what gives you away as a scientifically illiterate moron. Every author must define his terms. Every single one. Almost every term is used in many different ways all around the world. I detailed for you the actual chemistry meaning/usage several times but you have shown repeatedly that you are too stupid to learn. All you understand is your Peace Corps meaning ... which you are probably lying about since you lie about so many other things just to get attention. Why you felt compelled to lie about Dominican coral reefs is beyond me, but suffice to say that you have absolutely zero credibility and it doesn't appear that you understand much chemistry. You don't even know what "organic" means. With regard to your operating definition, you could only give what you thought were some examples, not any definition. You also won't clarify anything or define your terms, i.e. you hope beyond hope that no one will ask you any questions because you haven't the vaguest clue what you are talking about.

Did I miss anything?

Im a BM wrote: The term "organic acids" is so common,

Nice pivot. The term in question is your "organic carbon." There is no such thing. Carbon is carbon. When you are asked what you could possibly mean by this (because carbon makes something organic, not the other way around), you panic because you don't know; you haven't any idea why you spew this term, other than to OBEY your religion that some forms of carbon are "good" while others are "evil", all dependent on whether they are glorified or demonized by your stupid religious faith.

Im a BM wrote: The "'organic carbon' crap" is what you will find in chemistry research articles.

Any scientifically illiterate moron that can bang on a keyboard can write an "article." What you won't find is any "organic carbon" crap in any chemistry.

I was just looking at the periodic table and I was having difficulty locating the "organic carbon" it defines. Would you mind pointing it out to me, oh brilliant geobiogammatrist?



Im a BM wrote: Readers of peer-reviewed scientific articles are not expected to be mind readers.

Learn what "peer reviewed" means. It has nothing to do with science, so as such, I guess you wouldn't know then, so I give you a pass this time.

Seriously, learn what "peer reviewed" means. Nobody owns science. Nobody's permission is required to make science or to conduct research.

Im a BM wrote: Referring to the "stupid author" as being the legitimate object of grievance because he failed to spoon feed remedial education for the potential reader who never studied enough chemistry to get anything out of the article anyway...

When you give yourself away, you do so in spades. All authors must define all their terms. You are a moron for thinking otherwise.
08-09-2024 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote: My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

Whoaaaa! Dial it back a bit. What makes you think they were "scientific" papers as opposed to just regular, ordinary, vanilla papers? Why the "scientific" modifier? You don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I know several entire 3rd-grade classes who don't understand the subject matter either.

Im a BM wrote: The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

And there's your answer, i.e. it's not a scientific paper.

Im a BM wrote: "Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Thanks, but we don't need any additional evidence that the paper is not scientific. We have enough to draw our conclusions.

Im a BM wrote: Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

I said "Thanks." We're done because that is not how scientists communicate in any papers. You have been very convincing.

Im a BM wrote: For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Terms need to be defined everywhere. It's all part of communication. All stuck-up highbrow snobs who don't define all their terms should be kicked to the curb as pretenders who obviously don't even know what they are talking about and only have gibberish to peddle.

Im a BM wrote: Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

It sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like a dumbshit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards.

Im a BM wrote: They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

So now you know what I'm talking about. This really shouldn't be the first time you are learning this.

Im a BM wrote: That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

Nope. Nobody can read minds. Submissions that don't define their terms should be automatically rejected. Try submitting something in the real world where the absolute smartest people are, e.g. engineering firms, commercial science labs, Defense contractors, etc., without defining your terms and see how far you get. Nobody cares how much bravado you have, if you don't define your terms, out the door you go.

You, in contrast, refuse to define your terms because you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about ... and look, surprise, surprise, ... you aren't one of the world's smart people working for a commercial firm that actually produces results.

Do you see the direct correlation? If you don't, it's because you aren't one of the world's smart people. Ask me how I know that Lockheed won't be hiring you anytime soon.

I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told "this is a scientific journal."
08-09-2024 09:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"I started reading through this but I had to stop." - IBdaMann

This is regarding the paper that IBdaMann brought to our attention.

An excellent paper, among the first to say much about organic alkalinity.

IBdaMann originally claimed that this paper included the term "alkaline neutralizing capacity", and served as proof that I was wrong.

Too bad he was too scientifically illiterate to understand the "gibber babble".

Too bad he failed in his attempt to understand the paper he brought in.

He could have learned what the term "organic" means to chemists.

A year and a half later, he still doesn't have a clue.

He could have learned what alkalinity is. A year and a half later, he still thinks that buffering just means acid gets diluted in water, because "water itself is a buffer."

Still doesn't have a clue about how bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide 99% of the sea's buffering capacity, or how increasing concentration of carbonic acid decreases concentration of carbonate ions.

I guess he couldn't do it without someone there to spoon feed him definitions for all those big words he never learned because he never actually studied any science.

Once a troll, always a troll.



IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Alkalinity, and Acid-Base Status of Natural Waters Containing Organic Acids

I started reading through this but I had to stop. I'll get back to it later today. In the meantime, I was hoping you would explain something that is giving me a bad taste about this article. What does the author mean by "organic." The article uses the word "organic" more liberally than products at Walmart. As you know, carbon is an element and can't be organic, yet you have used the term, as does this article "organic carbon" like that is supposed to mean something important, just not important enough to explain it to those reading the article. Then it uses the term "organic acids" without explaining. At Costco they sell "organic" chocolate milk without explaining that either. Should I be ignoring this article or is there really something I, as the reader, need to know that the stupid author was too brain-dead to mention?

How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word "organic" in this article? I know of many meanings, but the one that I would expect from a chemist is "carbon-based" or "of life/living/alive" ... and not this silly, seemingly redundant "organic carbon" crap. Anyway, I wouldn't care one way or the other if the author would explain up front instead of presuming that his readers are all mind-readers.

Im a BM wrote:The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk) are extensively employed in the characterization of natural waters, including soft circumneutral oracidic waters.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it. Will the author be explaining these terms or am I expected to wonder what kind of waters are synthetic waters? ... and whether or not there are oralkaline waters and what that even means? Will the paper also discuss circumacidic waters and circumbasic waters ... or only the circumneutral waters?

Im a BM wrote:It DOES give good background on "The terms acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and alkalinity (Alk)..." Recommended reading for those who have difficulty with these definitions.

I'm looking forward to reading all about it.

Im a BM wrote:But what is special about the paper is recognition that organic alkalinity is a not a negligible contributor to total alkalinity. Indeed, our understanding of alkalinity is incomplete without it.

What do chemists consider "substantive" in this case?

Im a BM wrote:Organic alkalinity is responsible for making iron available to support photosynthesis in the sea.

Seawater gets its iron from other sources; the alkalinity is incidental. Thermal vents, erosion, dust, etc. all bring iron into the ocean.



"How am I, as the reader, expected to understand the word 'organic' in this article?"

"Then it uses the term 'organic acids' without explaining."

"...and not this silly, seemingly redundant, 'organic carbon' crap."

"...presuming that his readers are all mind readers."


You, as the reader, are expected to be scientifically literate enough to understand the word "organic" in this article.

The term "organic acids" is so common, with 150 years of usage among scientists, that no research article needs to repeat the definition again.

The "'organic carbon' crap" is what you will find in chemistry research articles.

Readers of peer-reviewed scientific articles are not expected to be mind readers.

Readers ARE presumed to be scientifically literate enough to understand BASIC terms like "organic", "organic carbon", "organic acid", and even "organic alkalinity".

Referring to the "stupid author" as being the legitimate object of grievance because he failed to spoon feed remedial education for the potential reader who never studied enough chemistry to get anything out of the article anyway...

No, the failure here is the arrogance of the READER.

But, isn't IBdaMann omniscient about all things scientific?

Shouldn't he be explaining to the author what the words REALLY mean?

Maybe he will get a Nobel Prize for proving that there is no such thing as organic carbon.

Carbon isn't 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
08-09-2024 10:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE,

Science isn't a magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers,

Science has no voting bloc. Science doesn't use consensus. Science is not a paper.
Im a BM wrote:
begins with the following sentence:

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

Nitrogen is not organic. There is no such thing as "ecosystem nutrient fluxes'.
Im a BM wrote:
The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

Nitrogen is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
"Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

They don't mean anything. Buzzwords don't mean anything.
Im a BM wrote:
Because that is not how scientists communicate in research papers.

Science is not a paper or a 'communication'.
Im a BM wrote:
For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Science is not a textbook.
Im a BM wrote:
Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

Science is not a journal or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Void reference fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

Science is not a journal or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
You just don't see folks wasting time and space on what everyone should already know. Or at least know how to figure out by themselves.

Void reference fallacy. Redefinition fallacies (element<->organic, science<->magazine, science<->paper, science<->scientist).


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
09-09-2024 04:14
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote].

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've already cited their work, anyway.

If anyone wants to PM me, I could send you a bibliography about the subject, including the Harold and Hemond (2009) paper.



Organic Alkalinity and Potential Significance for Ocean "Acidification"

IBdaMann found an excellent research paper and posted it.

The most important contribution of this paper was to point out that organic alkalinity is an overlooked contributor to total alkalinity.

Kind of reminds me how what most scientists called the most important contribution of my 1995 paper in NATURE was to point out that organic nitrogen is an overlooked contributor to total nitrogen.

Organic acids tend to be weak acids. That makes them good buffers.

Citric acid, for example, only partially deprotonates at near neutral pH.

Some of it remains present as citric acid, with proton still attached.

Some of it deprotonates, dissociating into hydrogen cation (H+) and citrate anion.

Citrate buffers work best in the slightly acidic range, as they can neutralize a proton by protonating a citrate anion to form citric acid which remains protonated. Or some of the citric acid can deprotonate into citrate anion, and that proton can neutralize any added base (OH-).

But the buffering capacity of organic alkalinity doesn't offer much help with regard to ocean "acidification". Organic alkalinity is only the tiniest fraction of the sea's total alkalinity, way below 1%.

On the other hand, organic alkalinity can comprise 25% of total alkalinity in groundwater of some wetlands, according to colleagues of mine.

Most places it is a lot less than that, but it is still a contributor in the alkalinity of submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands.

But the most relevant feature of organic alkalinity with regard to ocean acidification is the metal-complexing capacity of organic anions.

There would not be enough iron in seawater to support photosynthesis without metal complexing organic anions chelating iron to keep it soluble.

Without enough iron to support photosynthesis, inorganic carbon dissolved in sea water would not get transformed into organic carbon, neutralizing ocean acidification.

So, organic alkalinity is actually very important.
09-09-2024 09:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
I have actually referenced this paper before in communications about organic alkalinity.

Alkalinity is not a chemical nor organic.
Im a BM wrote:
For years, the importance of organic acid anions as contributors to alkalinity was overlooked.

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

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

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

Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Harold and Hemond never once said anything about "alkaline neutralizing capacity" or "alkalinity neutralizing capacity".

Alkaline is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity neutralizing capacity'.
Im a BM wrote:
They are scientists.

Denying science is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
They weren't just playing word games.

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

What work?
Im a BM wrote:
If anyone wants to PM me, I could send you a bibliography about the subject, including the Harold and Hemond (2009) paper.

Science is not a paper.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic Alkalinity and Potential Significance for Ocean "Acidification"

Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not possible acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
The most important contribution of this paper was to point out that organic alkalinity is an overlooked contributor to total alkalinity.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Kind of reminds me how what most scientists called the most important contribution of my 1995 paper in NATURE was to point out that organic nitrogen is an overlooked contributor to total nitrogen.

Science is not a magazine or journal. Nitrogen is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic acids tend to be weak acids. That makes them good buffers.

Buffer for what?
Im a BM wrote:
Citric acid, for example, only partially deprotonates at near neutral pH.
Some of it remains present as citric acid, with proton still attached.
Some of it deprotonates, dissociating into hydrogen cation (H+) and citrate anion.
Citrate is not a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Citrate buffers

Citrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
work best in the slightly acidic range,

Citric acid is...well...an acid.
Im a BM wrote:
as they can neutralize a proton by protonating a citrate anion

Citrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
to form citric acid which remains protonated.

Citrate is not a chemical. It is not citric acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Or some of the citric acid can deprotonate into citrate anion, and that proton can neutralize any added base (OH-).

Citrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
But the buffering capacity of organic alkalinity

Alkalinity is not a chemical or a buffer. There is no such thing as 'buffering capacity'.
Im a BM wrote:
doesn't offer much help with regard to ocean "acidification".

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Organic alkalinity is only the tiniest fraction of the sea's total alkalinity, way below 1%.

Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not 'organic'.
Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, organic alkalinity can comprise 25% of total alkalinity in groundwater of some wetlands, according to colleagues of mine.

Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not 'organic'.
Im a BM wrote:
Most places it is a lot less than that, but it is still a contributor in the alkalinity of submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands.

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Go learn hydraulics.
Im a BM wrote:
But the most relevant feature of organic alkalinity with regard to ocean acidification is the metal-complexing capacity of organic anions.

Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
There would not be enough iron in seawater to support photosynthesis without metal complexing organic anions chelating iron to keep it soluble.

Iron is not photosynthesis.
Im a BM wrote:
Without enough iron to support photosynthesis, inorganic carbon dissolved in sea water would not get transformed into organic carbon, neutralizing ocean acidification.

Iron is not photosynthesis. Carbon is not organic. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
So, organic alkalinity is actually very important.

Alkalinity is not a chemical nor '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
09-09-2024 12:13
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This is buffering basics backwards.

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

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

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

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

Your question is best expressed as:

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any questions.



HOORAY! Mr. Chemistry Genius makes it perfectly clear in this one.

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

I'm guessing that must be because pure "water itself is a buffer", so it barely feels the effect of one drop of pure acid. But SEA water... Wow! 2000 times as much effect from that one drop of acid. Because basicity is exponential. And sea water basicity is way more impacted by acid than pure water basicity. Yeah, that explains it perfectly.

So when you add a drop of acid to sea water, that exponential basicity kicks in, and it doesn't have as much of the buffering that pure water has because it isn't as pure, so...

"Magnitude of Effect = Delta(solution) / Delta (pH)"

All right! Now we can put in some numbers to make more sense of it.

Okay, Delta(pH) is how much the pH changed when that one drop of acid was added.

Delta(solution)? Damn, I wish he would define his terms...

Well, the bigger the "Delta(solution)", the bigger the "Magnitude of effect", because "Delta(solution)" is the numerator in the fraction...

"Delta(solution)" must be that 2000 times more potent effect because basicity is exponential?

Or maybe it is the "Magnitude of Effect" that is 2000 times more potent thing?

Well I can't plug anything into the equation without some number besides 2000 to work with, and what the heck are the UNITS anyway? Other than pH, nothing is identified by parameter or unit or...

Basicity, apparently, is exponential. Was basicity the "Magnitude of Effect", or the "Delta(solution)"?

IBdaMann should have provided a better definition for the terms he introduces.

Doesn't it just PISS YOU OFF when they won't provide unambiguous definitions for their terms?

What is basicity? How is it exponential? What would be an example of a basicity measurement, with units?

Well whatever it is, it accounts for why "Ocean water would be most profoundly affected by a drop of pure acid." (compared to pure water)

And this is before we even START with how the real issue is "change to the acid"


and, sarcasm aside, IBdaMann doesn't even qualify as an AMATEUR chemist.

But it will be entertaining to see the convoluted obfuscation presented to prove how I am a scientifically illiterate moron, incapable of comprehending his scientific genius. Come on! "Basicity" is EXPONENTIAL! Don't you get it?
10-09-2024 09:19
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

"In fact, it sounds like a dumb-shit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards." - IBdaMann

A tough guy to satisfy.

"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

"You don't even know what science is." - IBdaMann

And that is probably WHY I wouldn't understand how INCORRECT the incomprehensible non-science gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords are in those dumb-shit rags.

"I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn." - IBdaMann

And that is the tragic part.

Imagine if I had recognized the value of the wisdom I could have had access to, if I only had the courage to come to you with questions about the hard stuff.

I could have learned so much...

I'll have to live with the burden of that loss.

That golden opportunity that I missed.

The chance to learn TRUE SCIENCE (not the gibber babble fake stuff) from a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS.

Well, it's good to see that there aren't any others who will have to live with that deep regret.

They all know enough to come to IBdaMann with their questions about the hard stuff.

IBdaMann, you know that I am a lost cause.

Your efforts would be better spent on all those who are NOT too stupid to learn.

Don't be distracted by a hopeless case of one of the unteachables.

Go back to your disciples who are smart enough to benefit from your wisdom.

They need you to help them with the hard stuff.

I am not capable of comprehending it. I don't even know what science is.

Be free, my Guru. You have done all you can here. Your gift is needed elsewhere.

IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

Whoaaaa! Dial it back a bit. What makes you think they were "scientific" papers as opposed to just regular, ordinary, vanilla papers? Why the "scientific" modifier? You don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I know several entire 3rd-grade classes who don't understand the subject matter either.

Im a BM wrote: The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

And there's your answer, i.e. it's not a scientific paper.

Im a BM wrote: "Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Thanks, but we don't need any additional evidence that the paper is not scientific. We have enough to draw our conclusions.

Im a BM wrote: Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

I said "Thanks." We're done because that is not how scientists communicate in any papers. You have been very convincing.

Im a BM wrote: For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Terms need to be defined everywhere. It's all part of communication. All stuck-up highbrow snobs who don't define all their terms should be kicked to the curb as pretenders who obviously don't even know what they are talking about and only have gibberish to peddle.

Im a BM wrote: Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

It sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like a dumbshit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards.

Im a BM wrote: They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

So now you know what I'm talking about. This really shouldn't be the first time you are learning this.

Im a BM wrote: That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

Nope. Nobody can read minds. Submissions that don't define their terms should be automatically rejected. Try submitting something in the real world where the absolute smartest people are, e.g. engineering firms, commercial science labs, Defense contractors, etc., without defining your terms and see how far you get. Nobody cares how much bravado you have, if you don't define your terms, out the door you go.

You, in contrast, refuse to define your terms because you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about ... and look, surprise, surprise, ... you aren't one of the world's smart people working for a commercial firm that actually produces results.

Do you see the direct correlation? If you don't, it's because you aren't one of the world's smart people. Ask me how I know that Lockheed won't be hiring you anytime soon.

I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told "this is a scientific journal."
10-09-2024 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

Science isn't a magazine or a journal.


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
10-09-2024 23:22
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

Science isn't a magazine or a journal.


Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line?

Is this a rebuttal to someone's claim that "Science is a magazine or a journal"?

Actually, SCIENCE IS a journal. One of the two best scientific journals on earth, along with NATURE. The scientist who manages to get a discovery published in the journal SCIENCE earns a place among the elite.

Did someone ask you to interject yourself into a discussion about sea water chemistry, because they wanted you to answer some "question"?

"Into the Night, please teach me something. Is science a magazine or journal?"

No, science isn't a magazine or journal.

DUH!!!

and we are all more stupid for even wasting consciousness on the question.
10-09-2024 23:22
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

Science isn't a magazine or a journal.


Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line?

Is this a rebuttal to someone's claim that "Science is a magazine or a journal"?

Actually, SCIENCE IS a journal. One of the two best scientific journals on earth, along with NATURE. The scientist who manages to get a discovery published in the journal SCIENCE earns a place among the elite.

Did someone ask you to interject yourself into a discussion about sea water chemistry, because they wanted you to answer some "question"?

"Into the Night, please teach me something. Is science a magazine or journal?"

No, science isn't a magazine or journal.

DUH!!!

and we are all more stupid for even wasting consciousness on the question.
11-09-2024 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

Science isn't a magazine or a journal.


Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line?

Is this a rebuttal to someone's claim that "Science is a magazine or a journal"?

Actually, SCIENCE IS a journal.

Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
One of the two best scientific journals on earth, along with NATURE.

Science is not a journal nor a magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
The scientist who manages to get a discovery published in the journal SCIENCE earns a place among the elite.

Science is not elitism. Science has no politics.
Im a BM wrote:
Did someone ask you to interject yourself into a discussion about sea water chemistry, because they wanted you to answer some "question"?

You aren't discussing seawater chemistry. You aren't even discussing chemistry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-09-2024 09:26
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

"In fact, it sounds like a dumb-shit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards." - IBdaMann

A tough guy to satisfy.

"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

"You don't even know what science is." - IBdaMann

And that is probably WHY I wouldn't understand how INCORRECT the incomprehensible non-science gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords are in those dumb-shit rags.

"I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn." - IBdaMann

And that is the tragic part.

Imagine if I had recognized the value of the wisdom I could have had access to, if I only had the courage to come to you with questions about the hard stuff.

I could have learned so much...

I'll have to live with the burden of that loss.

That golden opportunity that I missed.

The chance to learn TRUE SCIENCE (not the gibber babble fake stuff) from a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS.

Well, it's good to see that there aren't any others who will have to live with that deep regret.

They all know enough to come to IBdaMann with their questions about the hard stuff.

IBdaMann, you know that I am a lost cause.

Your efforts would be better spent on all those who are NOT too stupid to learn.

Don't be distracted by a hopeless case of one of the unteachables.

Go back to your disciples who are smart enough to benefit from your wisdom.

They need you to help them with the hard stuff.

I am not capable of comprehending it. I don't even know what science is.

Be free, my Guru. You have done all you can here. Your gift is needed elsewhere.

IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

Whoaaaa! Dial it back a bit. What makes you think they were "scientific" papers as opposed to just regular, ordinary, vanilla papers? Why the "scientific" modifier? You don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I know several entire 3rd-grade classes who don't understand the subject matter either.

Im a BM wrote: The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

And there's your answer, i.e. it's not a scientific paper.

Im a BM wrote: "Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Thanks, but we don't need any additional evidence that the paper is not scientific. We have enough to draw our conclusions.

Im a BM wrote: Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

I said "Thanks." We're done because that is not how scientists communicate in any papers. You have been very convincing.

Im a BM wrote: For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Terms need to be defined everywhere. It's all part of communication. All stuck-up highbrow snobs who don't define all their terms should be kicked to the curb as pretenders who obviously don't even know what they are talking about and only have gibberish to peddle.

Im a BM wrote: Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

It sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like a dumbshit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards.

Im a BM wrote: They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

So now you know what I'm talking about. This really shouldn't be the first time you are learning this.

Im a BM wrote: That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

Nope. Nobody can read minds. Submissions that don't define their terms should be automatically rejected. Try submitting something in the real world where the absolute smartest people are, e.g. engineering firms, commercial science labs, Defense contractors, etc., without defining your terms and see how far you get. Nobody cares how much bravado you have, if you don't define your terms, out the door you go.

You, in contrast, refuse to define your terms because you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about ... and look, surprise, surprise, ... you aren't one of the world's smart people working for a commercial firm that actually produces results.

Do you see the direct correlation? If you don't, it's because you aren't one of the world's smart people. Ask me how I know that Lockheed won't be hiring you anytime soon.

I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told "this is a scientific journal."
11-09-2024 10:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14947)
Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

I too would like to meet the guy who is confused about this.

Im a BM wrote:"In fact, it sounds like a dumb-shit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards." - IBdaMann

If there are no standards, it's got to be a rag.


Im a BM wrote:They all know enough to come to IBdaMann with their questions about the hard stuff.

That's what I'm here for.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, you know that I am a lost cause.

I'm holding out hope, but you do like to double down on stupid.

Im a BM wrote: Your efforts would be better spent on all those who are NOT too stupid to learn.

You make a good point, but my policy is to answer all questions and to help where I can.
11-09-2024 23:57
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1816)
"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

The journal NATURE, is NOT a "truly scientific journal", according to IBdaMann.

The journal SCIENCE doesn't even exist, according to Into the Night, because "Science is not a journal".

So what gullible Marxist followers of the Church of Global Warming worship as the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.. They aren't really scientific journals at all.

I WILL RISE TO THE CHALLENGE

Please provide just ONE example of a "truly scientific journal", tell me "this is a scientific journal", and see if I am capable of recognizing it.

We know that NATURE and SCIENCE don't make the list of "truly scientific journals".

Is there even ONE journal that meets the standard of "truly scientific"?

Heck, there might even be MORE than one.

But I'll shut up about it if you can provide just ONE example.

Is there ONE published journal that you can give an actual name to, which meets your high standards for being "truly scientific"?


God, I hope you don't say "Energy and Environment"

But we'll work with that if that's all you got.

Who could possibly doubt that IBdaMann's knowledge of the correct way to communicate science is FAR superior to that of the editors of the journal NATURE?

"In fact, it sounds like a dumb-shit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards." - IBdaMann

A tough guy to satisfy.

"You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told 'this is a scientific journal'" - IBdaMann

Sounds like I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a truly scientific journal and one of those dumb-shit rags, such as NATURE.

"You don't even know what science is." - IBdaMann

And that is probably WHY I wouldn't understand how INCORRECT the incomprehensible non-science gibber babble and meaningless buzzwords are in those dumb-shit rags.

"I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn." - IBdaMann

And that is the tragic part.

Imagine if I had recognized the value of the wisdom I could have had access to, if I only had the courage to come to you with questions about the hard stuff.

I could have learned so much...

I'll have to live with the burden of that loss.

That golden opportunity that I missed.

The chance to learn TRUE SCIENCE (not the gibber babble fake stuff) from a TRUE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS.

Well, it's good to see that there aren't any others who will have to live with that deep regret.

They all know enough to come to IBdaMann with their questions about the hard stuff.

IBdaMann, you know that I am a lost cause.

Your efforts would be better spent on all those who are NOT too stupid to learn.

Don't be distracted by a hopeless case of one of the unteachables.

Go back to your disciples who are smart enough to benefit from your wisdom.

They need you to help them with the hard stuff.

I am not capable of comprehending it. I don't even know what science is.

Be free, my Guru. You have done all you can here. Your gift is needed elsewhere.

IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: My 1995 publication in the journal NATURE, cited in about 800 other peer-reviewed scientific papers, begins with the following sentence:

Whoaaaa! Dial it back a bit. What makes you think they were "scientific" papers as opposed to just regular, ordinary, vanilla papers? Why the "scientific" modifier? You don't even know what science is.

Im a BM wrote: "The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I know several entire 3rd-grade classes who don't understand the subject matter either.

Im a BM wrote: The reference to ".. organic nitrogen" is not followed by any attempt to define the term. Nowhere in the paper is the term "organic nitrogen" defined.

And there's your answer, i.e. it's not a scientific paper.

Im a BM wrote: "Organic acids" and "organic carbon" are also terms used throughout my paper.

Thanks, but we don't need any additional evidence that the paper is not scientific. We have enough to draw our conclusions.

Im a BM wrote: Never once bothered to explain what they mean.

I said "Thanks." We're done because that is not how scientists communicate in any papers. You have been very convincing.

Im a BM wrote: For a TEXTBOOK, terms do need to be defined. Once.

Terms need to be defined everywhere. It's all part of communication. All stuck-up highbrow snobs who don't define all their terms should be kicked to the curb as pretenders who obviously don't even know what they are talking about and only have gibberish to peddle.

Im a BM wrote: Nature is one of the world's two most prestigious scientific journals.

It sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like a dumbshit rag that doesn't care enough to require that submissions meet any kind of minimum standards.

Im a BM wrote: They let me publish about "organic" this and that, and never required that I explain what they mean.

So now you know what I'm talking about. This really shouldn't be the first time you are learning this.

Im a BM wrote: That is because any competent scientist either already knows what they mean, or at least knows how to look up the definition all by themselves.

Nope. Nobody can read minds. Submissions that don't define their terms should be automatically rejected. Try submitting something in the real world where the absolute smartest people are, e.g. engineering firms, commercial science labs, Defense contractors, etc., without defining your terms and see how far you get. Nobody cares how much bravado you have, if you don't define your terms, out the door you go.

You, in contrast, refuse to define your terms because you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about ... and look, surprise, surprise, ... you aren't one of the world's smart people working for a commercial firm that actually produces results.

Do you see the direct correlation? If you don't, it's because you aren't one of the world's smart people. Ask me how I know that Lockheed won't be hiring you anytime soon.

I tried to help you. You are too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: And that is true for pretty much every scientific journal, in addition to NATURE.

You wouldn't recognize a truly scientific journal if you were handed one and told "this is a scientific journal."
[/quote]
Page 13 of 16<<<1112131415>>>





Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10809-12-2024 19:46
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification47709-12-2024 18:16
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity213-07-2023 15:50
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