Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Im a BM wrote:
"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.

On second thought, please DO pick Energy and Environment.

It is the go-to climate denial journal that pretends to be "scientific". It even has a pseudo peer-review process.

When the disciples of the Church of Thermodenial put together lists of "scientific" papers to support their assertions, articles from Energy and Environment usually make up the bulk of the list.

What do I LIKE about Energy and Environment?

THEY NEVER DEFINE THEIR TERMS!

The articles make CONSTANT reference to "climate change".

Never ONCE do ANY of the authors provide an unambiguous definition for the term they all use. I guess they expect us to be mind readers and know what "climate change" is without somebody spoon feeding us a definition.

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."

sealover wrote:
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"

sealover wrote:
It is the go-to climate denial journal that pretends to be "scientific". It even has a pseudo peer-review process.

sealover wrote:
When the disciples of the Church of Thermodenial put together lists of "scientific" papers to support their assertions, articles from Energy and Environment usually make up the bulk of the list.

What do I LIKE about Energy and Environment?

THEY NEVER DEFINE THEIR TERMS!

sealover wrote:
The articles make CONSTANT reference to "climate change".

sealover wrote:
Never ONCE do ANY of the authors provide an unambiguous definition for the term they all use. I guess they expect us to be mind readers and know what "climate change" is without somebody spoon feeding us a definition.

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now?

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:
COME AND GET YOUR SCIENCE!!!

All the science you will ever need to know about ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night explains how CO2 forms "carbolic acid" in water. But don't worry!

Im a BM wrote:
WATER ITSELF IS A BUFFER FOR ACID. So, no acidification is possible.

Im a BM wrote:
Ocean Acidification

Im a BM wrote:
Debunked explains how the extreme harsh alkaline conditions of the sea are severely limiting to its capacity support life.

Im a BM wrote:
Life would be able to thrive as never before if we could just make the sea less alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
The good news is that you aren't just limited to being able to read this chemistry wisdom in the links on this post.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

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

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

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

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

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

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

sealover wrote:
Carbon and Nitrogen Analysis Method Development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All organic carbon was oxidized to carbon dioxide by the persulfate, a VERY strong oxidant.

sealover wrote:
Infrared absorption of CO2 emitted gave measure of total ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).

sealover wrote:
The combined measure of total inorganic and total organic gave total carbon.

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

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
But what about doing what the new carbon analyzer did?

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

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

First measure all ammonium conductimetrically. Total ammonium.

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

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

sealover wrote:
Use catalyst to convert nitrate to ammonium and measure conductimetfa;;;

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

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

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

Sometimes advances in science aren't theoretical discoveries.

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

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

sealover wrote:
The Pyrite-Sulfuric-Acid Redox Cycle.

The oxidation of pyrite and the reduction of sulfate are major players in the earth's generation of acidity or alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity - The Basics

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is NOT a measurement of pH.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity (a noun) is NOT synonymous with "alkaline" (an adjective).
Alkaline may be an adjective, subject, or subsubject. Go learn English.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is the measurement of acid neutralizing capacity (ANC).

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is reported as moles of protons per liter that can be neutralized.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is also reported as grams of calcium carbonate equivalents, per liter.

sealover wrote:
Since one mole of calcium carbonate weighs about 100 grams, and can neutralize TWO moles of protons, the conversion factor is 50.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

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

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

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

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

So, why wasn't the term "dissolved organic nitrogen" highlighted in RED?

sealover wrote:
More than a year after IBdaMann posted this, he realized that there is NO SUCH THING as "organic carbon" or "organic nitrogen".

sealover wrote:
Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is a major source of alkalinity (i.e. carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions) supplying marine ecosystems.

sealover wrote:
This thread discusses how human activity can enhance or diminish the capacity of coastal wetlands to counteract ocean acidification.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file
Let's see if it let me attach the pdf file

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

Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) links terrestrial and marine systems, but has often been overlooked in coastal nutrient budgets because it is difficult to quantify. In this Review, we examine SGD nutrient fluxes in over 200 locations globally, explain their impact on biogeochemistry and discuss broader management implications. SGD nutrient fluxes exceed river inputs in ~60% of study sites, with median total SGD fluxes of 6.0 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 0.1 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 6.5 mmol m−2 per day for dissolved silicate. SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters, since SGD tends to have high nitrogen concentrations relative to phosphorus (76% of studies showed N

values above the Redfield ratio). It is notable that most investigations do not distinguish saline and fresh SGD, although they have different properties. Saline SGD is a ubiquitous, diffuse pathway releasing mostly recycled nutrients to global coastal waters, whereas fresh SGD is occasionally a local, point source of new nutrients. SGD-derived nutrient fluxes must be considered in water quality management plans, as these inputs can promote eutrophication if not properly managed.

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

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

Im a BM wrote:
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow)
...deleted spam...

keepit wrote:
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.

Im a BM wrote:
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow)[/b]
...deleted spam...

keepit wrote:
A couple of amateurs criticizing a professional is glaringly obvious.

Im a BM wrote:
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow)

Im a BM wrote:
I appreciate the acknowledgement, keepit!

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:
Much more recent work by the same researcher gives much more up to date information about this.

Im a BM wrote:
And the 3118 papers that cited this work since it was published also provide many references for the subject.

Im a BM wrote:
"The carbonate system", as it is taught in water chemistry,

Im a BM wrote:
The carbonate system

Im a BM wrote:
is a complex multiplayer equilibrium including carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
So, as the referenced paper from the journal SCIENCE points out,

Im a BM wrote:
the problem with ocean acidification

Im a BM wrote:
is the diminished availability of carbonate ion in solution for marine organisms to form calcium carbonate shell.

Im a BM wrote:
"Water is a powerful buffer" "Water itself is a buffer for acid"... just a couple of quotes from the troll who craps all over every thread.

A BUFFER is a substance dissolved in an aqueous solution that enables the solution to resist pH change upon addition of acid or base.

Im a BM wrote:
WATER as an INCREDIBLY WEAK buffer"

Im a BM wrote:
Add a strong acid or base to water. There is only the TINIEST amount of H+ or OH- available as a "buffer" to neutralize ANY of it. It just get diluted, not buffered.

Im a BM wrote:
An actual BUFFER does more than dilute the acid or base.

Im a BM wrote:
Add a strong acid or base to a solution of sodium bicarbonate (such as seawater)

Im a BM wrote:
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3
Hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid

Im a BM wrote:
A bicarbonate buffer transforms a STRONG acid (HCl) into a WEAK acid (H2CO3)

Im a BM wrote:
sodium hydroxide + sodium bicarbonate = water + sodium carbonate

Im a BM wrote:
A bicarbonate buffer

Im a BM wrote:
Visualize an imaginary ocean filled with PURE WATER.

Im a BM wrote:
Without any bicarbonate ion or carbonate ion to buffer it,

Im a BM wrote:
Pure water is such a WEAK buffer against pH change that its pH will drop to 5.6 just by being exposed to the atmosphere,

Im a BM wrote:
to form an extremely dilute solution of carbonic acid. Natural rainfall has pH about 5.6 because "water itself" is an incredibly WEAK buffer against pH change.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning five posts up from the bottom of page 8[/b]

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow)

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
I appreciate the acknowledgement, keepit!

Echo chambers are useless.

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

You are uneducated and illiterate.

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

Science is not a journal nor a magazine nor a paper. Science does not use consensus.

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

Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no 'too much' or 'should be' of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Much more recent work by the same researcher gives much more up to date information about this.

He is not a researcher. He is a priest.

Im a BM wrote:
And the 3118 papers that cited this work since it was published also provide many references for the subject.

Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus.

Im a BM wrote:
"The carbonate system", as it is taught in water chemistry,

There is no such thing as 'water chemistry'. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The carbonate system

There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'.

Im a BM wrote:
is a complex multiplayer equilibrium including carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
So, as the referenced paper from the journal SCIENCE points out,

Science is not a magazine or a journal. Science is not a paper.

Im a BM wrote:
the problem with ocean acidification

You can't acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
is the diminished availability of carbonate ion in solution for marine organisms to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Marine critters form shells perfectly well.

Im a BM wrote:
"Water is a powerful buffer" "Water itself is a buffer for acid"... just a couple of quotes from the troll who craps all over every thread.

A BUFFER is a substance dissolved in an aqueous solution that enables the solution to resist pH change upon addition of acid or base.

Water resists pH change.

Im a BM wrote:
WATER as an INCREDIBLY WEAK buffer"

Water is an excellent buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
Add a strong acid or base to water. There is only the TINIEST amount of H+ or OH- available as a "buffer" to neutralize ANY of it. It just get diluted, not buffered.

Neutralization is not a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
An actual BUFFER does more than dilute the acid or base.

Dilution is buffering, moron.

Im a BM wrote:
Add a strong acid or base to a solution of sodium bicarbonate (such as seawater)

Seawater is not sodium bicarbonate. It is primarily water.

Im a BM wrote:
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3
Hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid

Neutralization is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
A bicarbonate buffer transforms a STRONG acid (HCl) into a WEAK acid (H2CO3)

Neutralization is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
sodium hydroxide + sodium bicarbonate = water + sodium carbonate

Causing a fairly significant pH shift.

Im a BM wrote:
A bicarbonate buffer

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Visualize an imaginary ocean filled with PURE WATER.

The ocean is not pure water.

Im a BM wrote:
Without any bicarbonate ion or carbonate ion to buffer it,

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Pure water is such a WEAK buffer against pH change that its pH will drop to 5.6 just by being exposed to the atmosphere,

The atmosphere doesn't change pH.

Im a BM wrote:
to form an extremely dilute solution of carbonic acid. Natural rainfall has pH about 5.6 because "water itself" is an incredibly WEAK buffer against pH change.

It is not possible to measure the pH of all rain.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning five posts up from the bottom of page 8[/b]

Stop spamming.

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:

pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]

To a software engineer:

double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}

Aren't you any good at math? Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?

Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644

Run the code, dipsh't.

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

I suggested that you should be able to calculate the pH to two decimal places.

That's because I thought you possibly understood enough math to do the calculation yourself.

I would have only been able to calculate the pH at -0.41

I'm glad you know where to find those codes at least.

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Let's see... You've got two acetate groups attached to a benzene ring.

What drug is this? There actually isn't enough information given to specifically identify this chemical.

Where on the benzene ring are those two acetate groups?

Is it PARA di acetic benzene? Are those two acetate groups in ORTHO position to each other. Is it META benzyl diacetate?

There is no way to know which specific chemical is designated by C6H4(COOCH3)2

If it ALSO had a carboxylic group on the benzene ring, it could be aspirin.

Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's nothing that ever let ME see the elves.

Wait a minute... I assumed that COOCH3 was Swan's unique way of writing CH3COO. Maybe it isn't acetate at all. Maybe they are aceto oxy groups. Carbomethoxy groups?

Maybe if I look up something akin to para di carbomethoxy benzene, I'll find that one of them is a mind altering drug...

Actually, I'm not that curious.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Let's see... You've got two acetate groups attached to a benzene ring.

What drug is this? There actually isn't enough information given to specifically identify this chemical.

Where on the benzene ring are those two acetate groups?

Is it PARA di acetic benzene? Are those two acetate groups in ORTHO position to each other. Is it META benzyl diacetate?

There is no way to know which specific chemical is designated by C6H4(COOCH3)2

If it ALSO had a carboxylic group on the benzene ring, it could be aspirin.

Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's nothing that ever let ME see the elves.

Wait a minute... I assumed that COOCH3 was Swan's unique way of writing CH3COO. Maybe it isn't acetate at all. Maybe they are aceto oxy groups. Carbomethoxy groups?

Maybe if I look up something akin to para di carbomethoxy benzene, I'll find that one of them is a mind altering drug...

Actually, I'm not that curious.

Well, I got curious enough to see if I remembered the old O chem correctly. It's been 45 years since I had to pass an organic chemistry exam.

I'm assuming that Swan correctly copied the formula, and it probably doesn't designate acetate groups (CH3COO) but ... if it's hydroquinone diacetate, I never heard of it letting anyone see the elves.

I won't try to keep guessing.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Let's see... You've got two acetate groups attached to a benzene ring.

What drug is this? There actually isn't enough information given to specifically identify this chemical.

Where on the benzene ring are those two acetate groups?

Is it PARA di acetic benzene? Are those two acetate groups in ORTHO position to each other. Is it META benzyl diacetate?

There is no way to know which specific chemical is designated by C6H4(COOCH3)2

If it ALSO had a carboxylic group on the benzene ring, it could be aspirin.

Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's nothing that ever let ME see the elves.

Wait a minute... I assumed that COOCH3 was Swan's unique way of writing CH3COO. Maybe it isn't acetate at all. Maybe they are aceto oxy groups. Carbomethoxy groups?

Maybe if I look up something akin to para di carbomethoxy benzene, I'll find that one of them is a mind altering drug...

Actually, I'm not that curious.

Well, I got curious enough to see if I remembered the old O chem correctly. It's been 45 years since I had to pass an organic chemistry exam.

I'm assuming that Swan correctly copied the formula, and it probably doesn't designate acetate groups (CH3COO) but ... if it's hydroquinone diacetate, I never heard of it letting anyone see the elves.

I won't try to keep guessing.

Technically they are the machine elves in everyone's head, we are just their host





N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a plant-based hallucinogen that is outlawed in most countries. DMT was isolated from many species in the 1950s, notably by Pfizer chemists F. A. Hochstein and Anita M. Paradies, who discovered it in the leaves of Prestonia amazonica (aka Haemadictyon amazonicum), which is called "yagé" by inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon basin.

Hungarian chemist/psychologist Stephen Szará synthesized DMT in 1956 and studied its psychotropic effects in volunteers during that decade. DMT is sometimes called the "spirit molecule"; it produces psychedelic results when it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or "vaped". The DMT structure with a hydroxyl group on the benzene ring is the "feel-good" molecule serotonin.

DMT is currently an outlaw, but chemist David Olson and his research team at the University of California, Davis, may have found a legitimate pharmaceutical use for it and other hallucinogens. In an effort to find alternatives to the side effect–prone anesthetic ketamine* for treating depression, the investigators showed that DMT, LSD, and other psychotropics increase the number of synapses in the brain areas of lab animals that regulate emotion and mood.

As with ketamine, the effects are long-lasting and involve a similar signaling pathway. These results are promising, but any commercial drug to arise from them is a long way off.

Otherwise known as magic shrooms

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Let's see... You've got two acetate groups attached to a benzene ring.

What drug is this? There actually isn't enough information given to specifically identify this chemical.

Where on the benzene ring are those two acetate groups?

Is it PARA di acetic benzene? Are those two acetate groups in ORTHO position to each other. Is it META benzyl diacetate?

There is no way to know which specific chemical is designated by C6H4(COOCH3)2

If it ALSO had a carboxylic group on the benzene ring, it could be aspirin.

Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's nothing that ever let ME see the elves.

Wait a minute... I assumed that COOCH3 was Swan's unique way of writing CH3COO. Maybe it isn't acetate at all. Maybe they are aceto oxy groups. Carbomethoxy groups?

Maybe if I look up something akin to para di carbomethoxy benzene, I'll find that one of them is a mind altering drug...

Actually, I'm not that curious.

Well, I got curious enough to see if I remembered the old O chem correctly. It's been 45 years since I had to pass an organic chemistry exam.

I'm assuming that Swan correctly copied the formula, and it probably doesn't designate acetate groups (CH3COO) but ... if it's hydroquinone diacetate, I never heard of it letting anyone see the elves.

I won't try to keep guessing.

Technically they are the machine elves in everyone's head, we are just their host





N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a plant-based hallucinogen that is outlawed in most countries. DMT was isolated from many species in the 1950s, notably by Pfizer chemists F. A. Hochstein and Anita M. Paradies, who discovered it in the leaves of Prestonia amazonica (aka Haemadictyon amazonicum), which is called "yagé" by inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon basin.

Hungarian chemist/psychologist Stephen Szará synthesized DMT in 1956 and studied its psychotropic effects in volunteers during that decade. DMT is sometimes called the "spirit molecule"; it produces psychedelic results when it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or "vaped". The DMT structure with a hydroxyl group on the benzene ring is the "feel-good" molecule serotonin.

DMT is currently an outlaw, but chemist David Olson and his research team at the University of California, Davis, may have found a legitimate pharmaceutical use for it and other hallucinogens. In an effort to find alternatives to the side effect–prone anesthetic ketamine* for treating depression, the investigators showed that DMT, LSD, and other psychotropics increase the number of synapses in the brain areas of lab animals that regulate emotion and mood.

As with ketamine, the effects are long-lasting and involve a similar signaling pathway. These results are promising, but any commercial drug to arise from them is a long way off.

Otherwise known as magic shrooms

Im a BM wrote:
C6H4(COOCH3)2 is NOT the formula for DMT

I was curious what chemical it might be, but now I know that DMT was the one credited for elf visions. Never mind. DMT is NOT the chemical formula given.
Trying to discuss chemistry with Swan is a waste of time, but I thought it might be worth a try.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no chemical with pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water)." - Into the Night

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The list of strong mineral acids that can be diluted to have pH = 0 is long.

Let's try hydrochloric acid, which most "chemists" would agree is a "chemical".

Concentrated hydrochloric acid can be DILUTED down to a concentration of 1 mole per liter. The concentration of H+ is 1 M. The definition of "pH" is the negative logarithm of the H+ concentration. The logarithm of 1 M = 0. Ten to the zero power = 1. The NEGATIVE logarithm of 1 M is ALSO zero.

A 1 M solution of hydrochloric acid has H+ at a concentration of ten to the zero power. The pH of this solution is 0.0 Nothing "magical" about it.

The IDIOTIC claims about water being a powerful pH buffer, and the SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE claims about the irrelevance of bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions as the most important pH buffers in sea water because "Bicarbonate is not a chemical... Carbonate is not a chemical".

Well, stupid is as stupid does.

Into the Night wrote:

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:

Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Nah. That's YOU Robert. You don't even understand what pH IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

There is no chemical with a pH of 0 when dissolved in water (assuming such chemical is compatible with water!).

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Water with carbonic acid in it is not pure.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Neutralization is not buffering. It is making a salt.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Not necessarily.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

WRONG. Making a salt is not buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Robert.

C6H4(COOCH3)2. is the best chemical ever as it lets people see the elves

Let's see... You've got two acetate groups attached to a benzene ring.

What drug is this? There actually isn't enough information given to specifically identify this chemical.

Where on the benzene ring are those two acetate groups?

Is it PARA di acetic benzene? Are those two acetate groups in ORTHO position to each other. Is it META benzyl diacetate?

There is no way to know which specific chemical is designated by C6H4(COOCH3)2

If it ALSO had a carboxylic group on the benzene ring, it could be aspirin.

Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's nothing that ever let ME see the elves.

Wait a minute... I assumed that COOCH3 was Swan's unique way of writing CH3COO. Maybe it isn't acetate at all. Maybe they are aceto oxy groups. Carbomethoxy groups?

Maybe if I look up something akin to para di carbomethoxy benzene, I'll find that one of them is a mind altering drug...

Actually, I'm not that curious.

Well, I got curious enough to see if I remembered the old O chem correctly. It's been 45 years since I had to pass an organic chemistry exam.

I'm assuming that Swan correctly copied the formula, and it probably doesn't designate acetate groups (CH3COO) but ... if it's hydroquinone diacetate, I never heard of it letting anyone see the elves.

I won't try to keep guessing.

Technically they are the machine elves in everyone's head, we are just their host





N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is a plant-based hallucinogen that is outlawed in most countries. DMT was isolated from many species in the 1950s, notably by Pfizer chemists F. A. Hochstein and Anita M. Paradies, who discovered it in the leaves of Prestonia amazonica (aka Haemadictyon amazonicum), which is called "yagé" by inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon basin.

Hungarian chemist/psychologist Stephen Szará synthesized DMT in 1956 and studied its psychotropic effects in volunteers during that decade. DMT is sometimes called the "spirit molecule"; it produces psychedelic results when it is swallowed, inhaled, injected, or "vaped". The DMT structure with a hydroxyl group on the benzene ring is the "feel-good" molecule serotonin.

DMT is currently an outlaw, but chemist David Olson and his research team at the University of California, Davis, may have found a legitimate pharmaceutical use for it and other hallucinogens. In an effort to find alternatives to the side effect–prone anesthetic ketamine* for treating depression, the investigators showed that DMT, LSD, and other psychotropics increase the number of synapses in the brain areas of lab animals that regulate emotion and mood.

As with ketamine, the effects are long-lasting and involve a similar signaling pathway. These results are promising, but any commercial drug to arise from them is a long way off.

Otherwise known as magic shrooms

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

Do the math." - IBdaMann

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for another episode of Robert showing his illiteracy in acid-base chemistry:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
In addition to getting the basic concept of pH buffering BACKWARDS, this also displays laughable ignorance about the pH scale.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone with only a very superficial understanding about pH might assume that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

Im a BM wrote:
However, IBdaMann accidentally made a good point in trying to defend the claim that the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than the pure water.

He claimed that the "impact" referred was NOT the change in pH, but rather the "change to the acid".
He's correct. The acid would cease to be acid.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Well, the pure water did not have ANY change to its CARBONIC acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The sea water had its concentration of carbonic acid INCREASE upon addition of one drop of strong acid.
No. The concentration of carbonic acid remains the same.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Most titrations done for alkalinity measure use hydrochloric acid.

Im a BM wrote:
hydrochloric acid + sodium bicarbonate = sodium chloride + carbonic acid
HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonic acid is a much, much weaker acid than hydrochloric acid. The pH of a dilute carbonic acid solution is much closer to neutral than the pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid solution.

Im a BM wrote:
The bicarbonate ion buffers against pH change upon addition of strong acid.

Im a BM wrote:
This is called pH buffering.

Im a BM wrote:
And yes, the "change to the acid" is what it all about. Changing a strong acid into a weak acid.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:

pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]

To a software engineer:

double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}

Aren't you any good at math? Can't you calculate the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution?

Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644

Run the code, dipsh't.

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

I suggested that you should be able to calculate the pH to two decimal places.

That's because I thought you possibly understood enough math to do the calculation yourself.

I would have only been able to calculate the pH at -0.41

I'm glad you know where to find those codes at least.

Im a BM wrote: And you can't EVER admit when you are WRONG.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
To a scientist:

pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]

To a software engineer:

double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium);
}

Hey Bozo, I put the Java code right there in my response. Didn't you run it? I get an answer of -0.4054651081081644

Run the code, dipsh't.

Im a BM wrote:

I suggested that you should be able to calculate the pH to two decimal places.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
That's because I thought you possibly understood enough math to do the calculation yourself.

I would have only been able to calculate the pH at -0.41
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad you know where to find those codes at least.


Trying to have it both ways...

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann BEGINS by falsely claiming:

"To a scientist..
pH is a real number 0 < pH < 14..."
This is correct.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The FALSE part of the claim is that pH must be greater than zero and less than 14. This is consistent with the previous FALSE claim that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0

Im a BM wrote:
A 1 molar solution of sodium hydroxide has pH = 14

Im a BM wrote:
A 1 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has pH = 0

Im a BM wrote:
And, trying to have it both ways, IBdaMann goes on the CALCULATE the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution.

pH = -0.4045, according to IBdaMann's calculation.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, pH can be LESS than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, Into the Night's insistence that pH cannot be zero is consistent with IBdaMann's claim at the BEGINNING of the post. Not consistent with what he said at the end.

"0 < pH < 14" OR pH = -0.405 for 1.5 N nitric acid.

Im a BM wrote:
You can't have it both ways. And you can't EVER admit when you are WRONG.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: And you can't EVER admit when you are WRONG.

You can never admit when my code is correct.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: And you can't EVER admit when you are WRONG.

You can never admit when my code is correct.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: And you can't EVER admit when you are WRONG.

You can never admit when my code is correct.

I never tested your "code" to see if it was correct.

Im a BM wrote:
No way was I going to open up a link posted by a scientifically illiterate troll.

Im a BM wrote:
I didn't even finally open ANY of your links until a few months back when I read your ABSURD thing about "Debunking ocean acidification".

Im a BM wrote:
The answer of pH -0.40+ was correct.

Im a BM wrote:
If you used your "code" to get it, then YOUR CODE IS CORRECT!

Im a BM wrote:
However, the answer of pH -0.40+ CONTRADICTS your earlier claims, including in the very same post when you insisted that pH must be greater than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, the "magical" acid you invoked

Im a BM wrote:
while "debunking" my claim that a drop of acid added to pure water would cause a huge decrease in pH.

Im a BM wrote:
NO! The effect on SEA WATER would be "more pronounced."

And you could have explained it as because of the IMPURITIES in sea water that diminish the buffering power of the water itself. Water itself is a powerful buffer, right? But it's buffering power is diluted by impurities such as bicarbonate ions, in sea water. So the impact of a drop of acid will be "more pronounced".

Im a BM wrote:
Because you were NEVER WRONG about ANY of it.

Im a BM wrote:
And I deserve to be mocked as "Mr. Chemistry Genius" because I'm here PRETENDING TO BE A CHEMIST!

Im a BM wrote:
And that is a despicable thing to do.