Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Into the Night wrote:

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".

Chemistry is not a book.

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.

Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Sulfide is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfur isn't oxygen. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

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)

Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it.
Chemistry is not a search engine.

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry is not a search engine? Gosh! Who knew?

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the fact that you are unable to comprehend the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that I have published about CHEMISTRY in CHEMISTRY journals.. Well, it suggests that your knowledge of the subject matter may be deficient.

Im a BM wrote:
Everybody has the right to be stupid.

Im a BM wrote:
But you have no right to falsely accuse me of NOT being a "chemist", especially when you make it so obvious that you don't even know what chemistry IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and lignin and polyphenols and terpenes are all "carbohydrates", because that's all plants know how to make other than proteins, right?

Im a BM wrote:
Keep telling yourself, "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Im a BM wrote:
And to honor the website, "climate cannot change", right?

Im a BM wrote:
Keep on trolling, Professor Nothing!

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry is not a search engine? Gosh! Who knew?

Me. Apparently you are still having a problem with this.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the fact that you are unable to comprehend the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that I have published about CHEMISTRY in CHEMISTRY journals.. Well, it suggests that your knowledge of the subject matter may be deficient.

Chemistry is not a publication, paper, journal, or magazine.

Im a BM wrote:
Everybody has the right to be stupid.

I see you are claiming this right.

Im a BM wrote:
But you have no right to falsely accuse me of NOT being a "chemist", especially when you make it so obvious that you don't even know what chemistry IS.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and lignin and polyphenols and terpenes are all "carbohydrates", because that's all plants know how to make other than proteins, right?

I see you still don't get this.

Im a BM wrote:
Keep telling yourself, "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

There isn't.

Im a BM wrote:
And to honor the website, "climate cannot change", right?

That's right, though you still ignore English.

Im a BM wrote:
Keep on trolling, Professor Nothing!

Stop spamming.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on me or anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
GOOGLE is MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night

Here is more proof of that irrefutable fact.

I asked Google: "In chemistry, can sulfate be reduced"?

Because that LYIN' BROTHERMUCKER (Into the Night) has posted "sulfate cannot be reduced" HUNDREDS of times.

Google's answer? "Yes, sulfate SO4(2-) can be chemically reduced in both biological and chemical processes, typically converting sulfur from it +6 oxidation state to lower states, most commonly to sulfide (H2S), using electron donors like organic compounds or metals, often under anaerobic conditions."


Google = smart. ITN = not so smart.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
GOOGLE is MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night

Here is more proof of that irrefutable fact.

I asked Google: "In chemistry, can sulfate be reduced"?

Because that LYIN' BROTHERMUCKER (Into the Night) has posted "sulfate cannot be reduced" HUNDREDS of times.

Google's answer? "Yes, sulfate SO4(2-) can be chemically reduced in both biological and chemical processes, typically converting sulfur from it +6 oxidation state to lower states, most commonly to sulfide (H2S), using electron donors like organic compounds or metals, often under anaerobic conditions."


Google = smart. ITN = not so smart.

You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine. Sulfate is not a chemical. It cannot be reduced. Sulfide is not a chemical. Organic compounds aren't electrons. Metal is not electrons. Sulfur is not oxygen.

Go learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean Universal Truth.

Im a BM wrote:

No, something is NOT something else that it is not.

Wait... Are you SURE that "Organic compounds are not electrons"?

If you are correct, that shoots down your opponent's ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

No, something is NOT something else that it is not.

Wait... Are you SURE that "Organic compounds are not electrons"?

If you are correct, that shoots down your opponent's ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

You're the idiot that made it.

Im a BM wrote:
I completely forgot!

Yes, I wrote "Organic compounds are electrons".

I also wrote "Metals are electrons".

I also wrote "Sulfur is oxygen".

What other assertions did I make that you had to CORRECT?

Im a BM wrote:
I said, "I am Google", "Chemistry is a search engine", "Sulfate is a chemical", "Sulfide is a chemical", "Organic compounds are electrons" and "Metals are electrons", and "Sulfur is Oxygen".

Im a BM wrote:
My bad.

Therefore, the ONLY thing you needed to say in rebuttal to my points regarding chemistry was to point out that I am NOT Google, Chemistry is NOT a search engine, Organic compounds are NOT electrons, Metals are NOT electrons, Sulfur is NOT oxygen, etc.

Okay, now I stand corrected.

Im a BM wrote:
Do you HONESTLY believe that you understand ANY of this stuff?

Im a BM wrote:
A person can learn a LOT of chemistry by reading ITN's shit.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I completely forgot!

Yes, I wrote "Organic compounds are electrons".

I also wrote "Metals are electrons".

I also wrote "Sulfur is oxygen".

What other assertions did I make that you had to CORRECT?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
I said, "I am Google", "Chemistry is a search engine", "Sulfate is a chemical", "Sulfide is a chemical", "Organic compounds are electrons" and "Metals are electrons", and "Sulfur is Oxygen".

Yup.

Im a BM wrote:
My bad.

Therefore, the ONLY thing you needed to say in rebuttal to my points regarding chemistry was to point out that I am NOT Google, Chemistry is NOT a search engine, Organic compounds are NOT electrons, Metals are NOT electrons, Sulfur is NOT oxygen, etc.

Okay, now I stand corrected.

No, you are confused.

Im a BM wrote:
Do you HONESTLY believe that you understand ANY of this stuff?

No, I don't understand you at all, Robert. Why you insist on your buzzwords being 'chemistry' and 'science' and why you insist on spamming and trolling makes no sense to me at all.

Im a BM wrote:
A person can learn a LOT of chemistry by reading ITN's shit.

Theories of science aren't shit, Robert. You just want to ignore them.
Mathematics is not shit, Robert. You just want to ignore it.
Logic is not shit, Robert. You just want to ignore it.

Your buzzwords and cross spamming ARE shit. Your courtier fallacies ARE shit. Your inversion fallacies ARE shit.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame me for YOUR problems!

Im a BM wrote:
You are not science.

God is not a chemical.

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You are not science.

God is not a chemical.

Stop spamming.

YARP. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the SECRET "chemist", has a secret definition for pH buffering.

NO! Sea water pH buffering has NOTHING to do with bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, according to the SECRET "chemist". Because "carbonate is not a chemical", and neither is bicarbonate. Say it again, everybody. "Carbonate is not a chemical!"

The SECRET "chemist" teaches us that "Water itself is a buffer for acid".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the SECRET "chemist", has a secret definition for pH buffering.

NO! Sea water pH buffering has NOTHING to do with bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, according to the SECRET "chemist". Because "carbonate is not a chemical", and neither is bicarbonate. Say it again, everybody. "Carbonate is not a chemical!"

The SECRET "chemist" teaches us that "Water itself is a buffer for acid".

Still trying to figure out what a buffer is, eh? I already told you multiple times. So have others.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, yes, you told us multiple times what a "buffer" is! WATER ITSELF IS A BUFFER FOR ACID, remember?

What real scientists, including MYSELF call a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid. Carbonate ion, for example, is a very good pH buffer. Water is not.

Don't forget, CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! But carbonate ion is still an important pH buffer that is getting depleted by ocean "acidification".

The SECRET "chemist" will never reveal his sources for absolute truth in science.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, yes, you told us multiple times what a "buffer" is! WATER ITSELF IS A BUFFER FOR ACID, remember?

What real scientists, including MYSELF call a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid. Carbonate ion, for example, is a very good pH buffer. Water is not.

Don't forget, CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! But carbonate ion is still an important pH buffer that is getting depleted by ocean "acidification".

The SECRET "chemist" will never reveal his sources for absolute truth in science.

True Scotsman fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.
Carbonate is not a chemical. It can't be 'depleted'.
Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

YARP?

Can you cite your SOURCES?

YARP?

YARP!!!

FLARP, you sleazy little piece of yarp!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

YARP?

Can you cite your SOURCES?

YARP?

YARP!!!

FLARP, you sleazy little piece of yarp!

YARP

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

You won't answer because you don't even know what a "chemist" IS.

You won't answer because you DO know what a "troll" is.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

You won't answer because you don't even know what a "chemist" IS.

You won't answer because you DO know what a "troll" is.

YARP. RAAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Then put this on youtoob and get paid

Dopey

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Then put this on youtoob and get paid

Dopey

I could try, but I'll never be able to get rich like you.

I don't have the kind of super genius IQ=130 that makes it possible to buy stock that increases in value over time.

I'm just not that good.

I know I would be rich if I were truly intelligent.

It wouldn't even matter if I knew whether or not frogs have lungs.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My favorite quote from the abstract of this EXCELLENT scientific paper's abstract is:
"SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters..."

Im a BM wrote:
"SGD" stands for submarine groundwater discharge. While this good article's abstract makes no mention of ALKALINITY (it is about nutrients) it IS a great review about the importance of submarine groundwater discharge.

Im a BM wrote:
I LOVE the fact that they actually measured DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN in the SGD samples. I take some pride in that one. Water chemists used to ignore the fact that a lot of nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems is NOT in inorganic (mineral) form as ammonium, nitrate, or nitrite. In blackwater rivers and soil waters of tannin-rich ecosystems, MOST of the nitrogen is found as dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than ammonium or nitrate.

Im a BM wrote:
It would have been nice if the article ALSO discussed the importance of submarine groundwater discharge for supplying ALKALINITY (as carbonate and bicarbonate ions) to the sea. If the sea were made of pure water in equilibrium with an atmosphere with >420 ppm CO2, the pH of the sea would be 5.6, due to the formation of carbonic acid. SGD may be the single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea to maintain pH above 8.0

Im a BM wrote:
For comic relief, one might read the BIZZARE interpretation offered by IBdaMann, sniffing out conspiracies to get funding greater government control.

Im a BM wrote:
If IBdaMann had the slightest clue what any of the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" meant, he might have been able to make an intelligent contribution to this thread. But he did not.

Im a BM wrote:
And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is, although he tries to invoke evaporation and infinite dilution into a limitless volume of ocean water as plausible mechanisms to ensure that ocean "acidification" was of no concern.

Im a BM wrote:
Marine ecosystems DO care how much carbonate ion alkalinity is available in the water. They care a LOT.

Im a BM wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry could enhance the alkalinity output in SGD to counter the increased input of carbonic acid due to higher concentrations in the air.

Im a BM wrote:
Additional edit: Note that the abstract nearly always distinguishes the identified elements as being in "organic" or "inorganic" form. It covers "inorganic nitrogen" as well as "organic nitrogen". It distinguishes "organic phosphorus" from "inorganic phosphorus". If it DID cover alkalinity, it would have surely distinguished "organic carbon" from "inorganic carbon". About 99% of the sea's alkalinity arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote:
It is AWESOME that they included organic nitrogen analysis. Yes, "organic nitrogen" is REAL and it is significant. It is also revealing that NITRATE is NOT a significant contributor to nitrogen in SGD. Presumably, most nitrate present gets consumed by nitrate reduction (denitrification or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium), generating carbonate ions in the process.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrate reduction, like sulfate reduction, is an acid neutralizing reaction. Bacteria use nitrate or sulfate as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize organic carbon in the absence of oxygen. Rather than producing carbon dioxide, carbonate ion is the oxidized carbon product.

Im a BM wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

A sulfur atom is "organic" ONLY if it is attached to an atom of organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Atoms of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc., are "organic" if they are attached to atoms of organic carbon. "Inorganic" nitrogen is NOT attached to organic carbon (ammonium, nitrate, nitrogen gas).

Im a BM wrote:
So, every element EXCEPT carbon is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on whether or not they attach to an atom of organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, which typically translates to being attached to oxygen, rather than to hydrogen or carbon. Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, and carbonic acid. Organic carbon is every OTHER carbon atom out there, usually attached to carbon or hydrogen.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane is as highly reduced as carbon can get, at the extreme "organic" end of the continuum. One carbon atom attached to four hydrogens. CO2 is as oxidized as carbon can get, "inorganic" to the max. One carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms.

Im a BM wrote:
Because real chemists in the real world know what "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" are.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My favorite quote from the abstract of this EXCELLENT scientific paper's abstract is:
"SGD nitrogen input (mostly in the form of ammonium and dissolved organic nitrogen) often mitigates nitrogen limitation in coastal waters..."

Science is not a paper. Water is not nitrogen. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
"SGD" stands for submarine groundwater discharge. While this good article's abstract makes no mention of ALKALINITY (it is about nutrients) it IS a great review about the importance of submarine groundwater discharge.

Groundwater is not underwater. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
I LOVE the fact that they actually measured DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN in the SGD samples. I take some pride in that one. Water chemists used to ignore the fact that a lot of nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems is NOT in inorganic (mineral) form as ammonium, nitrate, or nitrite. In blackwater rivers and soil waters of tannin-rich ecosystems, MOST of the nitrogen is found as dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than ammonium or nitrate.

Nitrogen is not organic. Ground water is not under water. Nitrogen is not water. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrite is not a chemical. Blackwater is not a river or soil.

Im a BM wrote:
It would have been nice if the article ALSO discussed the importance of submarine groundwater discharge for supplying ALKALINITY (as carbonate and bicarbonate ions) to the sea. If the sea were made of pure water in equilibrium with an atmosphere with >420 ppm CO2, the pH of the sea would be 5.6, due to the formation of carbonic acid. SGD may be the single greatest source of new carbonate ions entering the sea to maintain pH above 8.0

Groundwater is not under water. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Dissolved carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
For comic relief, one might read the BIZZARE interpretation offered by IBdaMann, sniffing out conspiracies to get funding greater government control.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. No sniffing is required.

Im a BM wrote:
If IBdaMann had the slightest clue what any of the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" meant, he might have been able to make an intelligent contribution to this thread. But he did not.

Buzzwords have no meaning.
Gibber-babble has no meaning.
You cannot blame your gibber-babble on anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And he STILL doesn't have a clue what ALKALINITY is, although he tries to invoke evaporation and infinite dilution into a limitless volume of ocean water as plausible mechanisms to ensure that ocean "acidification" was of no concern.

Aklalinity is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline.

Im a BM wrote:
Marine ecosystems DO care how much carbonate ion alkalinity is available in the water. They care a LOT.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. An 'ecosystem' is not sentient.

Im a BM wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry could enhance the alkalinity output in SGD to counter the increased input of carbonic acid due to higher concentrations in the air.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Groundwater is not under water. What carbonic acid?

Im a BM wrote:
Additional edit: Note that the abstract nearly always distinguishes the identified elements as being in "organic" or "inorganic" form. It covers "inorganic nitrogen" as well as "organic nitrogen". It distinguishes "organic phosphorus" from "inorganic phosphorus". If it DID cover alkalinity, it would have surely distinguished "organic carbon" from "inorganic carbon". About 99% of the sea's alkalinity arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
It is AWESOME that they included organic nitrogen analysis. Yes, "organic nitrogen" is REAL and it is significant. It is also revealing that NITRATE is NOT a significant contributor to nitrogen in SGD. Presumably, most nitrate present gets consumed by nitrate reduction (denitrification or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium), generating carbonate ions in the process.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Groundwater is not under water. You cannot reduce 'nitrate'. It is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrate reduction, like sulfate reduction, is an acid neutralizing reaction. Bacteria use nitrate or sulfate as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize organic carbon in the absence of oxygen. Rather than producing carbon dioxide, carbonate ion is the oxidized carbon product.

You cannot reduce a 'nitrate'. Nitrate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'. Sulfate is not a chemical. What acid? There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
"Inorganic" versus "organic"?

A sulfur atom is "organic" ONLY if it is attached to an atom of organic carbon.

Sulfur is not organic. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Atoms of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc., are "organic" if they are attached to atoms of organic carbon. "Inorganic" nitrogen is NOT attached to organic carbon (ammonium, nitrate, nitrogen gas).

Nitrogen is not organic. phosphorus is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
So, every element EXCEPT carbon is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on whether or not they attach to an atom of organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon itself is defined as "organic" or "inorganic" depending on its oxidation state, which typically translates to being attached to oxygen, rather than to hydrogen or carbon. Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, and carbonic acid. Organic carbon is every OTHER carbon atom out there, usually attached to carbon or hydrogen.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane is as highly reduced as carbon can get, at the extreme "organic" end of the continuum. One carbon atom attached to four hydrogens. CO2 is as oxidized as carbon can get, "inorganic" to the max. One carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms.

Methane is not carbon. Carbon is not organic. CO2 is not carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
Because real chemists in the real world know what "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" are.

True Scotsman fallacy. You deny chemistry. Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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