Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean > Page 17

Page 17 of 17

14-02-2025 08:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Im a BM wrote:At least 2000 times as powerful as the pH "buffering" that same liter of sea water provides by DILUTION. Correct. Dilution is not as strong as other buffering, but nonetheless is buffering, per the definition of buffering ... which was the original point of contention.
14-02-2025 17:43
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, not the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical", as IBdaMann asserted, to have pH = 0.0 THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why.
14-02-2025 19:04
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Edited on 14-02-2025 19:15
14-02-2025 19:34
Swan★★★★★ (6333)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
14-02-2025 21:06
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98%
14-02-2025 22:30
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. [/quote]
14-02-2025 23:10
Swan★★★★★ (6333)	Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98% Are you naturally retarded, or did your mother drop you on your beak? Or both? IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
17-02-2025 22:19
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. You need to work on getting more substance from 98% less words So, you're saying we need to find a substance for 98% less cow gas emissions... Well, here's a candidate. Ferric iron. Iron(III). Fe3+... That stuff is EVERYWHERE. Typically the third or fourth most abundant substance you find in soil and surface rocks. So... We put FERRIC IRON into the cattle feed. We selectively breed a hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria to survive in cow guts. Two new changes for the cow diet. A lot more ferric iron in the feed than their used to be. And a "probiotic" dose of bacteria. Hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria. Among the residents already present in the cow guts are methanogenic archaebacteria. These guys use the hydrogen gas generated by fermentation in a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy and use that hydrogen as their energy source. The microbial methanogens take the hydrogen and combine it with carbon dioxide to make methane. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O plus small exothermic energy yield But now those methanogens have a competitor. The new guys in town, the iron reducing bacteria, can get a lot more bang for the buck from that hydrogen. Using the ferric iron in the feed, the hydrogen oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria use iron(III) as the terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+ They can TOTALLY outcompete the methanogens. They will be able to grow so much more with the same amount of hydrogen, the cows will stop belching methane. Instead, the cows will have ferrous iron(II) dissolved in their guts. Their poop will be a bit black colored from it maybe. It will make better fertilizer. It might be too much ferrous iron for the cows to handle. Some people are very sensitive to having too much ferrous iron in their guts, with medically dangerous adverse reactions. So, it may or may not be a way to cut cow gas emissions by 98% Are you naturally retarded, or did your mother drop you on your beak? Or both? You are right, Swan. The problem with using ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor for oxidizing hydrogen is that it generates a lot of PROTONS. Acid hydrogen ions. H2 + 2Fe3+ = 2Fe2+ + 2H+ We could try a DIFFERENT iron reducer to go after the METHANE instead of the hydrogen. A methane oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria could consume the waste product of the methanogens and turn into into more microbial biomass for cows to digest. But those guys generate ACID as well. CH4 + 8Fe3+ + 2H2O = CO2 + 8Fe2+ + 8H+ It takes eight ferric iron ions to oxidize one molecule of methane, and it generates eight hydrogen ion acid protons. That is a whole lot of acidification to get a little methane oxidized. Maybe sulfate reducing bacteria could take out the methane in the cow guts before they belch it out. CH4 + SO4(2-) = H2S + CO3(2-) + H2O These guys could take out the methane without causing acid indigestion. To the contrary, they make ANTACID carbonate ion. Make the perfect mix, where sulfate reducers take out most of the methane, but just a smidgeon of ferric iron would allow more competitive iron reducers to make just enough acid to balance the acid neutralization from sulfate reduction. What do you think, Swan? Two kinds of methane oxidizers, with more than enough sulfate, but dietary restriction of available ferric iron to keep the more competitive methane oxidizers from making too much acid. Then the cows get to digest them to make them into meat and milk, instead of belching out those calories and organic carbon as methane. Edited on 17-02-2025 22:23
07-03-2025 02:06
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. 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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. Edited on 07-03-2025 03:01
08-03-2025 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	Im a BM wrote: You are right, Swan. He didn't post anything significant. Im a BM wrote: The problem with using ferric iron as terminal electron acceptor for oxidizing hydrogen is that it generates a lot of PROTONS. Acid hydrogen ions. Hydrogen is not an ion nor an acid, Robert. Im a BM wrote: A methane oxidizing, iron reducing bacteria could consume the waste product of the methanogens and turn into into more microbial biomass for cows to digest. No such thing as 'methanogens'. Im a BM wrote: It takes eight ferric iron ions to oxidize one molecule of methane, and it generates eight hydrogen ion acid protons. There is no iron in methane. Hydrogen is not an ion nor an acid. Im a BM wrote: That is a whole lot of acidification to get a little methane oxidized. You can't acidify a buzzword. Im a BM wrote: Maybe sulfate reducing bacteria could take out the methane in the cow guts before they belch it out. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. Im a BM wrote: These guys could take out the methane without causing acid indigestion. Methane is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: To the contrary, they make ANTACID carbonate ion. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Make the perfect mix, where sulfate reducers take out most of the methane, but just a smidgeon of ferric iron would allow more competitive iron reducers to make just enough acid to balance the acid neutralization from sulfate reduction. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. Methane does not contain any sulfur nor iron. Iron is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: What do you think, Swan? He doesn't know chemistry either. Im a BM wrote: Two kinds of methane oxidizers, with more than enough sulfate, but dietary restriction of available ferric iron to keep the more competitive methane oxidizers from making too much acid. Then the cows get to digest them to make them into meat and milk, instead of belching out those calories and organic carbon as methane. Sulfate is not a chemical. Iron is not in methane. Iron is not an acid. Methane is not an acid. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not methane. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-03-2025 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." Google is not God. Google is not chemistry. Im a BM wrote: For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." Carbon is not organic. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: Water is a buffer. Im a BM wrote: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Water is a buffer. Salt is not a buffer. Im a BM wrote: Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Chemistry is not Google. Chemistry is not a textbook. Im a BM wrote: Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Dilution is NOT buffering. Yes it is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-03-2025 08:31
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. 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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry.
15-03-2025 02:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	Im a BM wrote: But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". When Into the Night tell you that "There is no such thing as..." some term, Google will almost always tell you that, "Yes, there is." For example, when ITN tells you "There is no such thing as organic carbon." You Google: "Is there such a thing as 'organic carbon'?" Google will tell you: "Yes, organic carbon refers to carbon-containing compounds... yada yada yada." Carbon is not organic. Google isn't science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: If Into the Night tries to take the term away from you by telling you that there is no such thing, Google has got your back. But Google is not just a girl who can't say "no". Ask Google: "Is water itself a buffer for acid?" Google don't play that. Google gently corrects with: "No, pure water itself is not a buffer for acids or bases because it lacks the necessary components (a weak acid or base) to resist pH changes." Good girl, that Google. And she happens to agree with the chemistry textbooks. Unlike pure water, sea water contains bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Bicarbonate ion is a weak acid and carbonate ion is a weak base. HCO3- + OH- = CO3(2-) + H2O minimum pH change with added base CO3(2-) + H+ = HCO3- minimum pH change with added acid Dilution is NOT buffering. Dilution is buffering. Google is not science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Three different approaches are offered to engineer coastal wetlands to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification. sealover, the ocean has never acidified. You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science. Ocean Acidification Debunked Into the Night's comments Coral Bleaching Debunked above post is From March 9, 2022 You would do well to read this material Im a BM wrote: "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." Context: "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'" "You cannot acidify an alkaline" "Water itself is a buffer for acid" "Dilution is buffering, moron." - Into the Night, letting you know you are a moron for not knowing this Mantra 1a. Lame! Im a BM wrote: NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Trying to deny your own posts never works, Robert. You deny both theories of science and chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Not possible. Im a BM wrote: Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. Not possible. Im a BM wrote: and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, moles H+ per liter, NOT the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). You are again demonstrating that you have no idea what pH is or how to calculate it. [b]Im a BM wrote: So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] [/b] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" You are again demonstrating that you have no idea what pH is or how to calculate it. Im a BM wrote: Nor would an acid have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, as IBdaMann mocked. It is not possible to have a pH of zero, Robert. Im a BM wrote: THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years too late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on IBdaMann or anybody else! Im a BM wrote: This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why. They are run by liberals and Democrats, that spend their time censoring any opinion except their own. That doesn't happen on this forum. There are few others where it doesn't happen either, and discussion is open. Im a BM wrote: Be sure to open up the "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" links in the original IBdaMann post to learn TRUE chemistry. You should read them. You cannot acidify an alkaline. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-03-2025 21:17
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1922)	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 above post is From March 9, 2022 "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. IBdaMann said "pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14; pH = -ln[H+]" THIS "point of contention" remains in dispute. Yes, pH is a real number. No, it is NOT constrained to be above zero and less than 14. Industrial caustic soda has pH ABOVE 14. Most concentrated mineral acids have pH BELOW zero. and pH is the negative LOGARITHM (-log) of hydrogen ion molarity, not the negative NATURAL LOG (-ln). So, the CORRECT definition of pH is pH = -log[H+] And anyone who understands math and chemistry knows why there is no magic constraint of "0 < pH < 14" Nor would an acid have to be "magical", as IBdaMann asserted, to have pH = 0.0 THESE were the "original point of contention" I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. Gosh, I wonder why.
19-03-2025 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22983)	Im a BM wrote: "..the definition of buffering...which was the original point of contention." NOPE. Yup. Im a BM wrote: THIS was the "original point of contention". The inability of IBdaMann to read. I never claimed that the ocean had "acidified". Blatant lie (denial). DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS, ROBERT! Im a BM wrote: "You would do well to learn chemistry and other basic science." Yes, the ORIGINAL point of contention. Nope. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The inability to understand scientific "gibber babble" enough to recognize that it displayed EXTENSIVE knowledge of chemistry and other basic science. Of course, within a couple of hours THAT "point of contention" evolved into others, such as IBdaMann's ABSURD claims regarding pH. ...deleted repetition of crap... You are describing yourself, Robert. Im a BM wrote: I am at least 30 years to late to tell IBdaMann, "You would do well to learn chemistry and some other basic science." He already knows sufficient science and chemistry to know you are a fraud, pretending to be a 'professional chemist'. Im a BM wrote: This class is way too advanced for the unprepared student. What class???? Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann's very first post, more than nine years ago, essentially admitted that he had already been banned from at least five other such discussion websites. So? Im a BM wrote: Gosh, I wonder why. RQAA. Pay attention, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 17 of 17

Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	489	19-03-2025 23:54
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	108	09-12-2024 19:46
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution	1	21-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts	13	18-08-2022 06:25