Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

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

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover 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);
}

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.

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 THOUGHT IT WAS MY DYSLEXIA ACTING UP

And I never bothered to do the calculation myself.

So tonight, when I was looking up values for the less-than-zero pH of some concentrated strong acids...

And this is SO embarrassing...

I realized it CAN'T be right. No way was 1.5 N nitric acid going to have pH THAT far below zero. If 5 N nitric acid had pH = -0.7, then 1.5 N nitric acid couldn't POSSIBLY have pH = -0.41. It was just too low to make mathematical sense.

I finally looked for the source of the MATH ERROR.

There really IS a GLARING MATH ERROR!

The DEFINITION FOR pH GIVEN BY IBdaMann is WRONG.

His definition (top of page) is "pH = -ln[H+]"

-ln[H+] is NOT the negative logarithm (base 10) of H+ concentration.

-ln[H+] is the negative NATURAL LOG (base "e") of H+ concentration.


THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF pH

pH = -log[H+]

-log[H+] is the negative logarithm (base 10)

I feel very foolish that I didn't notice the error long before I copied the result so many times. I even used the incorrect result to predict that a 1.5 N solution of sodium hydroxide would have pH = 14.405461... Again, without actually checking the math myself. Big mistake as a scientist.

IBdaMann's code did correctly calculate the negative NATURAL LOG (ln) of H+ concentration in a 1.5 N solution of nitric acid. = -0.4054651...

I FINALLY did the math MYSELF tonight to calculate 1.5 N nitric acid pH.

The answer: pH = -0.176

There is an important distinction between natural logs (ln) and logarithms (log).

So, having established that the pH of a 1.5 N nitric acid solution is -0.176

I can predict that the pH of a 1.5 N sodium hydroxide solution is 14.176

Yes, there was a HUGE math error in the way IBdaMann's code calculated pH, using natural logs instead of logarithms of base 10.

But I should have run the numbers myself before I blindly copied them.

I should have known that IBdaMann wasn't using the right math for pH.

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

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".

The answer of pH -0.40+ was correct. If you used your "code" to get it, then YOUR CODE IS CORRECT!

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.

Yes, the "magical" acid you invoked while "debunking" my claim that a drop of acid added to pure water would cause a huge decrease in pH.

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".

Because you were NEVER WRONG about ANY of it.

And I deserve to be mocked as "Mr. Chemistry Genius" because I'm here PRETENDING TO BE A CHEMIST! And that is a despicable thing to do.

Swan wrote:

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

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".

The answer of pH -0.40+ was correct. If you used your "code" to get it, then YOUR CODE IS CORRECT!

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.

Yes, the "magical" acid you invoked while "debunking" my claim that a drop of acid added to pure water would cause a huge decrease in pH.

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".

Because you were NEVER WRONG about ANY of it.

And I deserve to be mocked as "Mr. Chemistry Genius" because I'm here PRETENDING TO BE A CHEMIST! And that is a despicable thing to do.

Licking stamps does not make you a chemist

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

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

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".

The answer of pH -0.40+ was correct. If you used your "code" to get it, then YOUR CODE IS CORRECT!

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.

Yes, the "magical" acid you invoked while "debunking" my claim that a drop of acid added to pure water would cause a huge decrease in pH.

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".

Because you were NEVER WRONG about ANY of it.

And I deserve to be mocked as "Mr. Chemistry Genius" because I'm here PRETENDING TO BE A CHEMIST! And that is a despicable thing to do.

Licking stamps does not make you a chemist

I was unambiguously WRONG in this case. I claimed, incorrectly, that the answer given by IBdaMann's code was CORRECT, with pH = -0.41 for a solution of 1.5 N nitric acid. I falsely claimed that this validated the "code". Well, the only thing "correct" about the code's answer was that the pH is BELOW ZERO.

I would be even more embarrassed if this were one of the posts where I PRETENDED to have double checked the math "with pen and paper".

I finally DID "test the 'code' to see if it was correct".

No, the "code" is NOT correct.

It does NOT calculate pH correctly.

IBdaMann's "code" gave pH = -0.40.. for 1.5 N nitric acid. NOT CORRECT.

The problem with the code is that is uses NATURAL LOG (ln) rather than the LOGARITHM (log). Logarithm (log) is base 10. Natural Log (ln) is base "e".

SO, when IBdaMann set up the code with pH = -ln[H+], it was WRONG.

The correct formula is pH = -log[H+]

Using the CORRECT formula applied to 1.5 N nitric acid, pH = -0.176

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate.

Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree.

Google "defining one's terms"

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

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

Im a BM wrote:
This thread really IS about the biogeochemistry

Im a BM wrote:
of restoring alkalinity to the ocean,

Im a BM wrote:
primarily through the action of sulfate reducing bacteria.

Im a BM wrote:
As an example, a methane oxidizing sulfate reducing bacteria,

Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate reduction by bacteria

Im a BM wrote:
is a very important biochemical process in nature.

Im a BM wrote:
In the absence of oxygen, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-)- as oxidant to exploit organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Aerobic respiration or combustion transforms organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Methane, for example:

Im a BM wrote:
Microbial sulfate reduction

Im a BM wrote:
transforms organic carbon

Im a BM wrote:
into carbonate and bicarbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions created by microbial sulfate reduction are the major source of ALKALINITY for many marine ecosystems.

Im a BM wrote:
This thread includes scientific discussion

Im a BM wrote:
of the biogeochemistry

Im a BM wrote:
of alkalinity generation

Im a BM wrote:
in coastal wetlands by microbial sulfate reduction.

Im a BM wrote:
the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions produced by sulfate reduction

Im a BM wrote:
are a counterbalance to the carbonic acid entering the sea from the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
So I know he did NOT study chemistry in the United States. His familiarity with the term "sulfate" was to use the British spelling.

Im a BM wrote:
He hadn't communicated chemistry enough with US chemists to have gotten used to the American spelling of sulfate.

Im a BM wrote:
Either sulfate can be reduced or it cannot.

Im a BM wrote:
I have been in literally thousands of discussions with chemists - the kind with chemistry degrees from universities.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody gets to come in and define their own terms.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody gets to have their own personal definition for sulfate reduction.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody has to define "sulfate reduction" every time they use the term.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, two and a half years later...

Still making up rules for chemistry,

Im a BM wrote:
like the one about how pH is not ALLOWED to be less than or equal to zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Still repeating one short sentence over and over and over..

Im a BM wrote:
Then RQAA because he ALREADY repeated that sentence..

Im a BM wrote:
But, IBdaMann didn't use the term "sulphate" because he actually ever studied chemistry somewhere, and it was not the United States. He wasn't accustomed to the British spelling because he usually wrote for British chemists.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he hadn't seen or used the word "sulfate" often enough with its American spelling to know it.

Im a BM wrote:
And he had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he didn't know to immediately respond to Into the Night's absurd unsupported contrarian assertion prohibiting sulfate reduction as something that defies science.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, sulfate CAN be reduced by sulfate reducing bacteria..

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann encouraged me to:

"Google 'defining one's terms'"

Apparently, Google is a place IBdaMann recommends as a reliable source of information.

Google: Microbial sulfate reduction

If you studied any chemistry, you know what I mean by "reduce a sulphate".

Im a BM wrote:
It's kind of pathetic if you really need me to define it for you.

Even if you DIDN'T study chemistry and don't already know it, Google "sulfate reduction" before you insist that it is MY responsibility to teach you the meaning of the scientific terms that all the other scientists use.

Im a BM wrote:
It makes it impossible to even discuss it in any meaningful way.

In all this time, I still haven't really acquired any fondness for trolls.

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

This will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. The first post on page 1 of this thread is by "sealover", to open profile page.

-----------------------------------------------------------
This thread really IS about the biogeochemistry of restoring alkalinity to the ocean, primarily through the action of sulfate reducing bacteria. As an example, a methane oxidizing sulfate reducing bacteria, under low oxygen conditions:

CH4 + SO4(2-) = H20 + H2S + CO3(2-)
Methane + sulfate = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate

versus

CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2 for aerobic respiration or combustion
Methane + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide

Just for fun and laughs, bring in the CHEMISTRY CLOWN!

The Chemistry Clown says that sulfate cannot be chemically reduced, and there is not even any such thing as organic carbon.

The Chemistry Clown says "pH cannot be equal to or below zero."

Reality check:

pH = -log[H+] = negative logarithm of hydrogen ion Normality, moles per liter

Sour apple juice, pH 3, has [H+] concentration at 10 to the minus 3 power.

Apple juice with hydrogen ion concentration at 0.001 N

Apple juice is a dilute acid with pH above zero.

Because the logarithm of apple juice hydrogen ion concentration is NEGATIVE, at 10 to the NEGATIVE 3 power, its NEGATIVE logarithm HAS TO BE POSITIVE.

So its pH is POSITIVE because the logarithm of [H+] is NEGATIVE.

Okay, that also means that if the logarithm of [H+] is POSITIVE, then its NEGATIVE logarithm (i.e. pH) HAS TO BE NEGATIVE.

Right on the border line... a 1 N solution of HCl, hydrochloric acid.

pH = -log[H+] = -log[1 N] = 0 = pH zero, exactly.


dolijg'pa pgujq'og
;,ngpoi][q

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate.

Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree.

Google "defining one's terms"

March 12, 2022, just a couple of days after my first post.

Into the Night was insisting "You cannot reduce a sulfate".

Sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions is a very important biochemical process in nature.

In the absence of oxygen, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-)- as oxidant to exploit organic carbon.

Aerobic respiration or combustion transforms organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Methane, for example:

CH4 + 2O2 = 2H2O + CO2

Microbial sulfate reduction transforms organic carbon into carbonate and bicarbonate ion. Methane, for example:

CH4 + SO4(2-) = H2O + H2S + CO3(2-) or HCO3-
methane + sulfate ion = water + hydrogen sulfide + carbonate ion, bicarbonate

Carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions created by microbial sulfate reduction are the major source of ALKALINITY for many marine ecosystems.

This thread includes scientific discussion of the biogeochemistry of alkalinity generation in coastal wetlands by microbial sulfate reduction.

Entering the sea primarily as submarine groundwater discharge, the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions produced by sulfate reduction are a counterbalance to the carbonic acid entering the sea from the atmosphere.

Note, this was just two days in, and Into the Night is insisting that SULFATE CANNOT BE REDUCED, already with the parrot-like repetition of the same short sentence over and over and over.

And that was the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. The entire chemical explanation for why sulfate cannot be reduced was the four word claim that it cannot.

Okay, in steps IBdaMann. Again, just two days after we met,

"Why don't you just define what you mean by 'reduce a sulphate'. Maybe you both actually agree. Google 'defining one's terms'."

Well, one thing I notice is that he spells sulfate as "sulphate".

So I know he did NOT study chemistry in the United States. His familiarity with the term "sulfate" was to use the British spelling. He hadn't communicated chemistry enough with US chemists to have gotten used to the American spelling of sulfate. Hadn't seen the term on the blackboard/whiteboard of an American chemistry classroom. Wherever he might have studied chemistry, it wasn't the US.

But, IBdaMann thinks its possible that Into the Night and I might agree, if we just play some kind of definition word game.

Either sulfate can be reduced or it cannot.

I have been in literally thousands of discussions with chemists - the kind with chemistry degrees from universities.

Nobody gets to come in and define their own terms. Nobody gets to have their own personal definition for sulfate reduction. Nobody has to define "sulfate reduction" every time they use the term.

Well, two and a half years later...

Good old Into the Night, chemistry genius, still says that sulfate cannot be reduced. Still making up rules for chemistry, like the one about how pH is not ALLOWED to be less than or equal to zero. Still repeating one short sentence over and over and over.. Then RQAA because he ALREADY repeated that sentence..

But, IBdaMann didn't use the term "sulphate" because he actually ever studied chemistry somewhere, and it was not the United States. He wasn't accustomed to the British spelling because he usually wrote for British chemists.

IBdaMann had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he hadn't seen or used the word "sulfate" often enough with its American spelling to know it.

And he had so LITTLE knowledge of chemistry, he didn't know to immediately respond to Into the Night's absurd unsupported contrarian assertion prohibiting sulfate reduction as something that defies science.

Of course, sulfate CAN be reduced by sulfate reducing bacteria..

IBdaMann encouraged me to:

"Google 'defining one's terms'"

Apparently, Google is a place IBdaMann recommends as a reliable source of information.

Google: Microbial sulfate reduction

If you studied any chemistry, you know what I mean by "reduce a sulphate".

It's kind of pathetic if you really need me to define it for you.

Even if you DIDN'T study chemistry and don't already know it, Google "sulfate reduction" before you insist that it is MY responsibility to teach you the meaning of the scientific terms that all the other scientists use.

It makes it impossible to even discuss it in any meaningful way.

In all this time, I still haven't really acquired any fondness for trolls.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

Do the math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?

Im a BM wrote:
The birth of a respectful and productive discussion about ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
OF COURSE sea water is more buffered against pH change than pure water.

Im a BM wrote:
That's easy enough to prove to any scientifically literate rational adult, right?

Well, it turns out that it's NOT so easy to prove such a simple point of science to a scientifically illiterate troll.

Im a BM wrote:
Two and a half years later, the rebuttal to this first "Mr. Chemistry Genius" claim I made about pure water having virtually no pH buffering capacity CONTINUES.

Im a BM wrote:
NO! NO! NO! Water itself is a buffer for acid, they continue to say.

Im a BM wrote:
And don't forget that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH equal zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Didn't really get to take the biogeochemistry to very sophisticated level in this particular discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
Still can't agree what a buffer is or even how pH works.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The birth of a respectful and productive discussion about ocean acidification.

You can't acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
OF COURSE sea water is more buffered against pH change than pure water.

Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
That's easy enough to prove to any scientifically literate rational adult, right?

Well, it turns out that it's NOT so easy to prove such a simple point of science to a scientifically illiterate troll.

Your denial of science is YOUR problem.

Im a BM wrote:
Two and a half years later, the rebuttal to this first "Mr. Chemistry Genius" claim I made about pure water having virtually no pH buffering capacity CONTINUES.

Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
NO! NO! NO! Water itself is a buffer for acid, they continue to say.

It is.

Im a BM wrote:
And don't forget that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH equal zero.

It is not possible to have a pH of zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Didn't really get to take the biogeochemistry to very sophisticated level in this particular discussion.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:
Still can't agree what a buffer is or even how pH works.

Your own illiteracy is YOUR problem. Stop whining.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Yes you can reduce a sulfate.

Why don't you just define what you mean by "reduce a sulphate" . Maybe you both actually agree.

Google "defining one's terms"

Im a BM wrote:
This thread really IS about the biogeochemistry of restoring alkalinity to the ocean, primarily through the action of sulfate reducing bacteria. As an example, a methane oxidizing sulfate reducing bacteria, under low oxygen conditions:

Im a BM wrote:
In the absence of oxygen, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-)- as oxidant to exploit organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions created by microbial sulfate reduction are the major source of ALKALINITY for many marine ecosystems.

Im a BM wrote:
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water, consequently increasing the concentration of carbonic acid that forms from a fraction of 1% of the dissolved CO2. This carbonic acid is the source of the "acidification" in the term ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
Through the pH buffering of the carbonate system in sea water, this increase in acid concentration has caused little change to the pH of the ocean. It has only decreased by about 0.1 pH unit, from about pH 8.3 to pH 8.2.

Im a BM wrote:
Of far greater consequence to marine life than the small pH change is the substantial change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion, CO3(2-), to form calcium carbonate shell. Commercial marine aquaculture must now purchase chemical carbonate to add to sea water in order for it to have enough for healthy larval shell development.

Im a BM wrote:
This thread includes scientific discussion of the biogeochemistry of alkalinity generation in coastal wetlands by microbial sulfate reduction.

Im a BM wrote:
Entering the sea primarily as submarine groundwater discharge, the carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions produced by microbial sulfate reduction are a counterbalance to the carbonic acid increase due to anthropogenic CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist

Im a BM wrote:
who performed extensive groundwater chemistry investigations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. This direct source of "submarine groundwater discharge" from the delta to the sea, and the biogeochemical mechanisms regulating its composition, is what I studied.

Im a BM wrote:

The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning very near the bottom of page 8, continuing through most of page 9

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

Do the math.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"?

Im a BM wrote:
Let us use one liter of pure water as a microcosm for a vast reservoir of pure water.

Let us perform an experiment on one liter of pure water that represents the addition of 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid, 11.6 Molar, to a reservoir of pure water 500 meters wide, 600 meters long, and 20 meters deep.

The big reservoir contains six million cubic meters, or 6000 million LITERS.

We want one sixth BILLIONTH to be represented in our one liter test, so we add one six billionth the amount of acid contained in 150 gallons of the strong stuff.

Presto chango, we can have fun comparing the math and...

One drop of acid containing 1/6,000,000,000 the H+ in 150 gallons into one liter of pure water and the pH is...

5.96

Prove me wrong, science man!

Im a BM wrote:
Then I'll show you how real scientists calculate chemicals and stuff and you will see how one drop of acid makes a liter of pure water drop by more than one whole pH unit. An order of magnitude more acidic than before.

One drop of that same acid into one liter of SEA WATER.

Let's predict how much "more pronounced" the impact will be. How much larger the change to how much hydrogen ion is solution will be. Well, it certainly isn't going to be MORE BUFFERED against pH change than pure water, cause it don't got no more room than pure water to DILUTE it. Dilution is buffering, moron.

I'll show you my math so you can call me a moron.

Im a BM wrote:
The birth of a respectful and productive discussion about ocean acidification.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining and spam...

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:The question is, what are the units used to report it?

To a scientist:

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

To a software engineer:

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

To IBDaMann:

Peanut butter has a pH of 6.3, making my chicken acidic.

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

pH = -log[H+] if you believe the chemistry textbooks

Im a BM wrote:
"pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]" - IBdaMann

Im a BM wrote:
Not quite. But not too far off. In math, the symbol "ln" stands for natural log, whereas the symbol "log" stands for logarithm (base 10).

At least IBdaMann's slightly off definition for pH affirms that a 1.5 N solution of nitric acid has a pH below zero.

Im a BM wrote:
But pH is NOT constrained to the range between 0-14.

Im a BM wrote:
A strong acid can have pH below zero, and a strong base can pH greater than 14.

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS if you do what "scientists" are supposed to do

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

pH = -log[H+] if you believe the chemistry textbooks

Chemistry is not a textbook. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]" - IBdaMann

He is correct in stating that pH must be greater than zero and less than 14.

Im a BM wrote:
Not quite. But not too far off. In math, the symbol "ln" stands for natural log, whereas the symbol "log" stands for logarithm (base 10).

At least IBdaMann's slightly off definition for pH affirms that a 1.5 N solution of nitric acid has a pH below zero.

It is not possible for pH to be less than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
But pH is NOT constrained to the range between 0-14.

Yes it is. pH must be BETWEEN zero and 14.

Im a BM wrote:
A strong acid can have pH below zero, and a strong base can pH greater than 14.

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS if you do what "scientists" are supposed to do

Already did. RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
"You cannot acidify an alkaline." - Into the Night

In a fine demonstration of Goebbels Nazi propaganda axiom,

Im a BM wrote:
by REPEATING the claim over and over and over enough times, it sinks into the public mind as truth in some way.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate can no longer change

Im a BM wrote:
because the assertion that "Climate cannot change." has been repeated over and over and over and over... it takes on a truth of its own that requires no explanation at the same time it explains it all.

Im a BM wrote:
And if you just keep pretending that you are a chemist, and insist that there can be only ONE, and NO OTHER is really a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Dude, you couldn't even "RQAA" with ONE NAME of an actual "chemist" who is among those "chemists" that you DO respect.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't suppose ANY of them ever published ANYTHING, ANYWHERE that you can cite?

Im a BM wrote:
You don't need no stinkin' science citations!

Im a BM wrote:
Your infallible omniscience as a chemist is self evident.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

pH = -log[H+] if you believe the chemistry textbooks

Chemistry is not a textbook. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]" - IBdaMann

He is correct in stating that pH must be greater than zero and less than 14.

Im a BM wrote:
Not quite. But not too far off. In math, the symbol "ln" stands for natural log, whereas the symbol "log" stands for logarithm (base 10).

At least IBdaMann's slightly off definition for pH affirms that a 1.5 N solution of nitric acid has a pH below zero.

It is not possible for pH to be less than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
But pH is NOT constrained to the range between 0-14.

Yes it is. pH must be BETWEEN zero and 14.

Im a BM wrote:
A strong acid can have pH below zero, and a strong base can pH greater than 14.

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS if you do what "scientists" are supposed to do

Already did. RQAA.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.

You are a liar.

You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.

sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.

Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.

sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.

You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.

However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.

sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.

Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"

sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.

You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.

Ocean Acidification Debunked

Into the Night's comments

Coral Bleaching Debunked

Forget about posting gibberish papers.

Just explain your point in your own words.

Im a BM wrote: I love the way IBdaMann explains his point in his own words in the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (blue highlighted) link.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I love the way IBdaMann explains his point in his own words in the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (blue highlighted) link.

Nope. That's not what you love. You love never defining your terms. You love never answering clarification questions. You love pretending that your WACKY religion is somehow thettled thienth.

You don't answer questions or provide definitions because you are preaching. At least you can now rest securely in the knowledge that Trump will prevent your house from burning down.

You never mentioned how we should optimally celebrate Trump's inauguration and record-breaking day-1.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I love the way IBdaMann explains his point in his own words in the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (blue highlighted) link.

Nope. That's not what you love. You love never defining your terms. You love never answering clarification questions. You love pretending that your WACKY religion is somehow thettled thienth.

You don't answer questions or provide definitions because you are preaching. At least you can now rest securely in the knowledge that Trump will prevent your house from burning down.

You never mentioned how we should optimally celebrate Trump's inauguration and record-breaking day-1.

You have 14,934 posts over nine years of being one of the two most active members at climate-debate.com!

Im a BM wrote:
Your legacy will include many valuable science lessons you provided to members who came to you with questions about the hard stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
Often, IBdaMann posts are truly scientific explanations for environmental science that stand alone as useful lessons for science students to look up.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I love the way IBdaMann explains his point in his own words in the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (blue highlighted) link.

Nope. That's not what you love. You love never defining your terms. You love never answering clarification questions. You love pretending that your WACKY religion is somehow thettled thienth.

You don't answer questions or provide definitions because you are preaching. At least you can now rest securely in the knowledge that Trump will prevent your house from burning down.

You never mentioned how we should optimally celebrate Trump's inauguration and record-breaking day-1.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.

You are a liar.

You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.

sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.

Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.

sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.

You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.

However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.

sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.

Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"

sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.

You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.

Ocean Acidification Debunked

Into the Night's comments

Coral Bleaching Debunked

Forget about posting gibberish papers.

Just explain your point in your own words.

Im a BM wrote: He might have one upped me.

Im a BM wrote: He could have told me that he has even more advanced degrees than I do, from even more prestigious universities than those I attended.

Im a BM wrote: He could have told me that he has published more important scientific papers than I have, in more prestigious journals than those that published mine.

Im a BM wrote: He could have offered some reason why another scientist might consider him to be worthy of respect.

Im a BM wrote:Follow up to IBdaMann challenge:

IBdaMann asserted that a reservoir of pure water, 500 meters wide, 600 meters long, and 20 meters deep, would have pH = 6.95 if 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid (11.6 Molar).

I showed you MY calculations for how this degree of dilution achieves pH = 5.96

How did YOU calculate this volume of pure water would dilute it to pH = 6.95?[/b]

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Follow up to IBdaMann challenge:

IBdaMann asserted that a reservoir of pure water, 500 meters wide, 600 meters long, and 20 meters deep, would have pH = 6.95 if 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid (11.6 Molar).

I showed you MY calculations for how this degree of dilution achieves pH = 5.96

How did YOU calculate this volume of pure water would dilute it to pH = 6.95?[/b]

I apologize for the delay. I didn't see your mention until just now.

Allow me to redo my calculations and to show my work:

Reservoir of dimensions 500m x 600m x 20m = 6,000,000 m^3
6,000,000 m^3 = 6,000,000,000 liters

150 gallons = 567.81 liters * 11.6 Molar = 6,586.596 moles

6,586.596 / 6,000,000,000 = 0.0000019777

pH = -log(0.0000019777) = 5.96 (ooops). You're right. I miscalculated previously.

Let me work backward to see what I did wrong.

-6.95 = log (x) => x = 0.0000001122

6586.596 / y = 0.0000001122

y = 58,701,032,024.9 ~ 60,000,000,000 liters, not 6,000,000,000 liters.

I was off by a factor of 10.

Ergo, you are correct, 150 gallons of such HCL would need to be thoroughly mixed amongst ten such reservoirs to get the 6.95 pH value I mentioned.