Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Im a BM wrote:

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.

Within a short time of my very first post, IBdaMann informed me that I am "a liar", I do NOT have a degree in chemistry ("painfully obvious"), I "came here to preach non science gibber babble", and he knew all about my connections to "scientifically illiterate political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM, and Communist Party chapters!"

Perhaps most revealing of all, he complained about the "sheer incomprehensibility of (my) gibber babble". Translation: He didn't have a clue what those big words mean. Because he never actually studied science.

Most new members quit at that point in the process, as IBdaMann was proud to tell me. "You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap."

By then there were already only a handful left. Today, you just aren't going to find many on this site. Period.

sealover wrote:
Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.

sealover wrote:
When the sea level was lower,

sealover wrote:
the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while.

sealover wrote:
This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.

sealover wrote:
Now that the sea level is higher,

sealover wrote:
the low tide isn't as low anymore.

sealover wrote:
There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface.

sealover wrote:
Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean.

sealover wrote:
Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it.

sealover wrote:
It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide.

sealover wrote:
Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea.
The sea is not rising. The Moon has not changed in mass.
[quote]sealover wrote:
We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.

The sea is not rising.

sealover wrote:
When the sea level was lower,

The sea is not rising.

sealover wrote:
the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while.

What 'estuary'? Most rivers flow to the sea.

sealover wrote:
This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.

Sulfare is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. There is no such thing as a terminal electron acceptor. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Now that the sea level is higher,

The sea isn't rising.

sealover wrote:
the low tide isn't as low anymore.

The sea isn't rising.

sealover wrote:
There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface.

The elevation is always zero.

sealover wrote:
Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

sealover wrote:
Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic.

sealover wrote:
It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. The elevation of the land to the sea is always zero.

sealover wrote:
Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea.
The sea is not rising. The Moon has not changed in mass.
[quote]sealover wrote:
We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.

The sea level is not rising. Alkalinity is not a chemical.


Buzzword fallacies.

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Easy one, when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise. But that's ok for you not to know or believe, as long as you have donuts

Swan wrote: Easy one,

Swan wrote:when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise.

Swan wrote:Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Easy one, when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise. But that's ok for you not to know or believe, as long as you have donuts

So glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

Gawd.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

False. Photographic evidence, especially satellite photographs show no change.

Photographs of the Victoria Quay in Perth verify that there has been no discernible rise in sea level since at least 1890.

The iconic Santa Monica life guard stations show that there has been no discernible sea level rise since the 1960s, and satellite photography of the same beaches corroborates the conclusion of zero discernible change.

RAF Base Gan, built in 1940 by the British on a Maldives atoll with a highest elevation of 2M ASL, is Gan international airport today, on that same atoll, with its highest point remaining at 2M ASL.

No rational adult has any reason to believe that the ocean is somehow rising.

Irrational adults, however, who are desperately overdue for their next dose of Swanify will nonetheless babble about how the ocean has been rising for "thousands of years."

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Easy one, when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise. But that's ok for you not to know or believe, as long as you have donuts

So glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

Gawd.

Actually glaciers on land are already made of water, when they melt and flow into the ocean the ocean level must rise. This is not an argument it is a physical fact knowable to a third grader. Come back when you learn how to jerk off properly without your mom helping

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

False. Photographic evidence, especially satellite photographs show no change.

Photographs of the Victoria Quay in Perth verify that there has been no discernible rise in sea level since at least 1890.

The iconic Santa Monica life guard stations show that there has been no discernible sea level rise since the 1960s, and satellite photography of the same beaches corroborates the conclusion of zero discernible change.

RAF Base Gan, built in 1940 by the British on a Maldives atoll with a highest elevation of 2M ASL, is Gan international airport today, on that same atoll, with its highest point remaining at 2M ASL.

No rational adult has any reason to believe that the ocean is somehow rising.

Irrational adults, however, who are desperately overdue for their next dose of Swanify will nonetheless babble about how the ocean has been rising for "thousands of years."

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Easy one, when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise. But that's ok for you not to know or believe, as long as you have donuts

So glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

Gawd.

Actually glaciers on land are already made of water, when they melt and flow into the ocean the ocean level must rise. This is not an argument it is a physical fact knowable to a third grader. Come back when you learn how to jerk off properly without your mom helping

So insist that glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Sea level has been rising for 22,000 years, and still is

The sea level is not rising.

What evidence do you have that the sea level is rising?

Easy one, when glaciers on land melt, their water ends up in an ocean, causing rise. But that's ok for you not to know or believe, as long as you have donuts

So glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

Gawd.

Actually glaciers on land are already made of water, when they melt and flow into the ocean the ocean level must rise. This is not an argument it is a physical fact knowable to a third grader. Come back when you learn how to jerk off properly without your mom helping

So insist that glaciers and rivers magickally create water out of nothing. That's your argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Again glaciers do not create water as they are water, and when they melt the glacial water is added to the oceans causing rise. You already know and understand this and are clearly refusing to deny the delusion that is your life. So again sea level has been rising fir 22,000 years

Im a BM wrote:
Power Assisted Estuaries

Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands.

Im a BM wrote:
Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.

When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining spam...

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:
...deleted spam...
Anyone who bothers to read your incredible stupidity about "Ocean Acidification Debunked" (in blue, in your post) will know that YOU do not meet the qualifications for whatever "definition" of "chemist" an actual scientist would use.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who bothers to read the incredible stupidity of Into the Night, "Into the Night's Comments" (in blue, in your post) will know that HE does not meet the qualifications for "chemist" by any scientist's definition.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, YOU are the one who needs to explain by what definition of "chemist" you made the original accusations against ME.

Im a BM wrote:
Some great QUOTES from yours and ITN's stupidity.. We can get back to that. Both of you guys made ABSURD assertions in "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's Comments"

Im a BM wrote:
"You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious."

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:
"Nothing", the Chemistry Clown

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Nothing", the Chemistry Clown

...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote: Stop denying science.

Im a BM wrote: Science is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote: Sea water alkalinity arise from chemicals, primarily bicarbonate IONS, HCO3-, and carbonate IONS, CO3(2-).

Im a BM wrote: Emphasis on IONS because carbonate ION is a CHEMICAL

Im a BM wrote: And that is an example of pH BUFFERING.

Im a BM wrote: Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.

Im a BM wrote: Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is also a CHEMICAL.

Im a BM wrote: A good buffer for acid is NOT H2O,

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Stop denying science.

This is going to be fun.

Im a BM wrote: Science is not a chemical.

Too funny! You claim to be a biogeohypoalchemist ... so at least you aren't claiming to be a chemist.

As a layman, you don't know the difference between a chemical and a category of chemicals. It would seem that biogeohypoalchemy doesn't require one to learn such, but if you are going to inadvertently wander into these kinds of discussions, you will need to know all the subtle distinctions and nuances ...

... and you still have to unambiguously define all your terms. I realize that you have never been required to learn what a definition is, and that you have been taught that a definition is akin to demonic antiscience worship, but you have been led astray.

One can only imagine how you might have turned out if you had ever learned the definition of a "molecule" or that water evaporates, or the English word "amphibious".

Im a BM wrote: You are not a chemical.

... nor is he a category of chemicals.

Im a BM wrote: Sea water alkalinity arise from chemicals, primarily bicarbonate IONS, HCO3-, and carbonate IONS, CO3(2-).

... that enter the ocean via erosion, countless tons every day.

Im a BM wrote: Emphasis on IONS because carbonate ION is a CHEMICAL

Nope. I think we can just agree that learning what a "category" is happens to be beyond your abilities.

There are chemicals, and there are categories of chemicals, and no category is a chemical. Carbonates and bicarbonates are categories of chemicals, not chemicals.

I just wasted my time trying to explain that to you, didn't I? You aren't able to grasp this concept of "categories" any more than you are able to understand that water evaporates.

Im a BM wrote: And that is an example of pH BUFFERING.

Oh yes, that reminds me. Dilution also meets the definition of buffering, and you aren't able to understand that either. This goes back to your inability to grasp the idea of "definitions."

Im a BM wrote: Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.

... because water itself buffers acid through dilution, per the defintion ... but since you don't understand any of this, we have to give you a pass with our most solemn understanding and patience.

Im a BM wrote: Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is also a CHEMICAL.

Yes, calcium carbonate is a chemical. Carbonate, its category, is not a chemical, it is a category.

Im a BM wrote: A good buffer for acid is NOT H2O,

A great buffer for acid is H2O if we're talking about the ocean because there is just so much of it. However much H2O you need, the ocean will supply it without making even a dent.

Where did you ever get the impression that the ocean was somehow running dry? Anyone who passed high school chemistry knows that there is always plenty of water in the ocean.
[center]

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Nothing", the Chemistry Clown

...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Stop denying science.

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You are not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Sea water alkalinity arise from chemicals, primarily bicarbonate IONS, HCO3-, and carbonate IONS, CO3(2-).

Im a BM wrote:
Emphasis on IONS because carbonate ION is a CHEMICAL that neutralizes carbonic acid, HCO3
Carbonate is not a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Not "carbolic acid" as "Nothing", The Chemistry Clown asserts.

Im a BM wrote:
CARBONIC acid, H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3-

Im a BM wrote:
And that is an example of pH BUFFERING.

Im a BM wrote:
Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.

Im a BM wrote:
The CHEMICAL known as carbonate ION is required by most shell forming organisms in order to make calcium carbonate shell. Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is also a CHEMICAL.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Calcium carbonate IS a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
A good buffer for acid is NOT H2O, it is the CONJUGATE BASE OF A WEAK ACID.

Im a BM wrote:
anyone who passed high school chemistry knows what I'm talking about.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Stop denying science.

This is going to be fun.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
"Nothing", the Chemistry Clown

...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Stop denying science.

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You are not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Sea water alkalinity arise from chemicals, primarily bicarbonate IONS, HCO3-, and carbonate IONS, CO3(2-).

Im a BM wrote:
Emphasis on IONS because carbonate ION is a CHEMICAL that neutralizes carbonic acid, HCO3
Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Not "carbolic acid" as "Nothing", The Chemistry Clown asserts.

I'm not talking about carbolic acid or carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
CARBONIC acid, H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3-

Random letters.

Im a BM wrote:
And that is an example of pH BUFFERING.

No, it's an example of random letters.

Im a BM wrote:
Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid.

It certainly is.

Im a BM wrote:
The CHEMICAL known as carbonate ION is required by most shell forming organisms in order to make calcium carbonate shell. Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is also a CHEMICAL.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Calcium carbonate IS a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
A good buffer for acid is NOT H2O, it is the CONJUGATE BASE OF A WEAK ACID.

Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
anyone who passed high school chemistry knows what I'm talking about.

Anyone that has ever diluted battery acid (sulfuric acid) knows what I'm talking about, and knows you're full of shit.

Im a BM wrote:
Now I understand how you were able to win your first scholarship to attend a university for chemistry training when you were just 15. It makes sense that you have the kind of chemistry knowledge that leads to the kind of research to make the kind of discoveries that get published in the most prestigious journals. No wonder you were able to earn advanced degrees from the most prestigious universities. I can only gaze in awe, envy, and humiliation. I feel so inferior, and inadequate regarding my command of scientific vocabulary and facts.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted bad quoting and spam....

Im a BM wrote:
"Random letters"? That is all Into the Night sees when a chemical equation is presented.

Im a BM wrote:
I wrote "CARBONIC acid, H2CO3 + CO3(2-) = 2HCO3-"

Im a BM wrote:
ITN replies "Random letters"

Im a BM wrote:
That explains why he cannot comprehend that pH = -log[H+].

Im a BM wrote:
All he can see are "random letters". I guess they are "not a chemical" or something.

Im a BM wrote:
Right, Into the Night? H2CO3 is NOT a chemical. Just "random letters"?

Im a BM wrote:
Who could possibly doubt that you are really a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
And science is NOT a chemical.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Now I understand how you were able to win your first scholarship to attend a university for chemistry training when you were just 15. It makes sense that you have the kind of chemistry knowledge that leads to the kind of research to make the kind of discoveries that get published in the most prestigious journals. No wonder you were able to earn advanced degrees from the most prestigious universities. I can only gaze in awe, envy, and humiliation. I feel so inferior, and inadequate regarding my command of scientific vocabulary and facts.

Chemistry is not a university, class, book, paper, journal, magazine, website, paper, degree, license, research, publication, or any other sanctification.

Science is not a vocabulary, fact, class, university, college, paper, magazine, journal, website, degree, license, research, publication, or any other sanctification.

Courtier's fallacy.

Im a BM wrote: Now I understand how you were able to win your first scholarship to attend a university for chemistry training when you were just 15. It makes sense that you have the kind of chemistry knowledge that leads to the kind of research to make the kind of discoveries that get published in the most prestigious journals. No wonder you were able to earn advanced degrees from the most prestigious universities. I can only gaze in awe, envy, and humiliation. I feel so inferior, and inadequate regarding my command of scientific vocabulary and facts.

Im a BM wrote:
It is of such great value to have a long list of words for things that chemistry and science are NOT.
Why? It's YOUR list!
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, science is NOT a banana peel, and chemistry is NOT a clown.

Science is not a dildo, and chemistry is not a.. this is going to take FOREVER to write a list of everything that chemistry is NOT.

Im a BM wrote:
Would it be easier if we said "scienTIST" and "chemIST"?

Im a BM wrote:
A list of everything that is NOT a scientist or a chemist.

Into the Night is not a scientist. Into the Night is not a chemist.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is of such great value to have a long list of words for things that chemistry and science are NOT.
Why? It's YOUR list!
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, science is NOT a banana peel, and chemistry is NOT a clown.

Science is not a dildo, and chemistry is not a.. this is going to take FOREVER to write a list of everything that chemistry is NOT.

Feel like adding to your list such ridiculous items?

Im a BM wrote:
Would it be easier if we said "scienTIST" and "chemIST"?

No.

Im a BM wrote:
A list of everything that is NOT a scientist or a chemist.

Into the Night is not a scientist. Into the Night is not a chemist.

You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is of such great value to have a long list of words for things that chemistry and science are NOT.
Why? It's YOUR list!
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, science is NOT a banana peel, and chemistry is NOT a clown.

Science is not a dildo, and chemistry is not a.. this is going to take FOREVER to write a list of everything that chemistry is NOT.

Feel like adding to your list such ridiculous items?

Im a BM wrote:
Would it be easier if we said "scienTIST" and "chemIST"?

No.

Im a BM wrote:
A list of everything that is NOT a scientist or a chemist.

Into the Night is not a scientist. Into the Night is not a chemist.

You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy.

I realize that I shouldn't blame my problem on you or anybody else.

Im a BM wrote:

I just can't help but notice you are a TROLL who insists on spamming every biogeochemistry thread with PARROT POOP.

Nobody is FORCING you to keep pretending you have any comprehension of science, as you constantly assert "No such thing!" "No, it's NOT!" with all the scientific clarity of 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:
[b][i]Back to the BASICS of ALKALINITY.
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
[b][i]Back to the BASICS of ALKALINITY.
...deleted spam...

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
[i]Back to the BASICS of ALKALINITY.
...deleted spam...

Alkalinity is not a chemical. Stop spamming.

No, alkalinity is not a chemical.

[b]Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity arising from conjugate bases of weak acids. In sea water, about 90% of its total alkalinity arises from bicarbonate ion, 10% from carbonate ions, and less than 1% from hydroxide or other anions.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you stand by your assertion that VEGETABLE OIL is actually a CARBOHYDRATE?

Im a BM wrote:
If, so, are you aware the "Nutrition Facts" labels on containers of vegetable oil sold at the supermarket claim it contains only "fat", and ZERO GRAMS of what they agree to call "carbohydrates"?

Im a BM wrote:
What is YOUR secret definition of "carbohydrate" that includes vegetable oil?

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'acid sulfate'. Pyrites occur on soil all over the world. They are also known as 'fools gold'. They are quite prevalent in the rivers of upper Idaho, which makes them sparkle in a gold color. Quite pretty.

No, pyrite doesn't become sulfuric acid. These naturally occurring minerals are a salt. You can't get energy out of nothing. You should study Gibb's law and the concept of energy required to make and break bonds in molecules.

Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

Carbonate is not a system. An alkaline is not an acid. I have already described to YOU the equilibrium reaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and carbonic acid.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Carbonic acid is in equilibrium with dissolved carbonate and bicarbonate ions.

Nope. It is in equilibrium with dissolved carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The "carbonate system" is a real thing.

sealover wrote:
Far more than just two players in equilibrium.

sealover wrote:
Do you know what bicarbonate is?

sealover wrote:
Do you know that carbonic acid cannot turn into carbonate or visa versa, without first going through transformation into bicarbonate (which has it's own three-way equilbrium with the other two species)

sealover wrote:
Go learn some chemistry. You are sounding like an idiot.

sealover wrote:
Your ignorance regarding pyrite is a teachable moment.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite forms in wetland sediments when bacteria use sulfate to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions.

sealover wrote:
Pyrite formation and burial generates alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Iron oxidizing bacteria use oxygen to turn pyrite into sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
This is basic textbook stuff.

sealover wrote:
Iron pyrite is most common, but sulfate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can produce other kinds of pyrite as well.

sealover wrote:
Arsenic is often sequestered during pyrite formation.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Arsenian pyrite can then release soluble arsenic if the pyrite is later oxidized by aerobic conditions.

Nope. No arsenic in pyrite.

sealover wrote:
Here's the true teachable moment.

The only thing you're teaching is nonsense.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage gets most of its sulfuric acid from pyrite oxidation.

There is no such thing as 'oxidation' in chemistry. Buzzword fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Acid mine drainage pH is < 3.

Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.

sealover wrote:
Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine drainage.

Not necessary. Anything acidic coming out of a mine will be converted into some salt.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction generates pyrite and alkalinity.

Nope. Deoxidation generate pyrite. You cannot generate alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Groundwater discharged from constructed wetlands built to remediate acid mine drainage has pH about 7.

Groundwater is not a discharge.

sealover wrote:
A constructed saltwater wetland on the coast would not have pH < 3 acid mine drainage as input water.

Random number of type randU. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.

sealover wrote:
Sulfate reduction would take water sea water that is already alkaline and add more alkalinity before it is discharged as groundwater.

You can't reduce a sulfate. It's already reduced.

Im a BM wrote:
It turns out that "there is no such thing as" a lot of terms in those FAKE chemistry textbooks. Entire chapters dedicated to the "buzzword" about some kind of "oxidation".

Im a BM wrote:
Reality check on iron pyrite. Pyrite forms under low oxygen conditions through the action of sulfate-reducing bacteria. The bacteria use sulfate ion dissolved in the water as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon in the absence of oxygen. Sulfate is reduced to sulfide, while organic carbon is oxidized to carbonate ion. Pyrite decomposes under aerobic conditions through the action of sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Sulfur oxidation is the source of metabolic energy, using O2 oxygen as oxidant. The sulfide in pyrite gets oxidized to sulfuric acid by bacteria under aerobic conditions. Sulfur oxidation generated sulfuric acid. Sulfate reduction generates carbonate ion alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote:
Actually, you CAN reduce a sulfate. It's called "sulfate reduction". Google it! (because by now you realize that Google IS God)