Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
Bicarbonate, monovalent oxyanion, carbonate oxyanions.

Unambiguous definition of terms.

Bicarbonate is a monovalent oxyanion with 1 equivalents per mole ANC.

Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion with 2 equivalents per mole ANC.

Carbonate and bicarbonate anions are both "carbonates" in the "carbonate system" that buffers the sea.

ANC is acid neutralizing capacity.

Acid neutralizing capacity is alkalinity.

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

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

The sea is already alkaline. What's to restore?

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

WRONG. Alkaline is NOT neutral.

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

Pure water is not alkaline. It is not acid either. It has a pH of 7.

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

sealover wrote:
Technically, this is libel.

sealover wrote:
"You are a liar."
"You do NOT have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious"

I guess it takes one to know one in this chemistry expertise thing.

sealover wrote:
The only reason this isn't libel, is because defaming "sealover" doesn't matter to anyone.

sealover wrote:
It doesn't matter to anyone besides the trolls, that is.

sealover wrote:
The real individual behind the "sealover" persona remains just as highly respected now as before.

sealover wrote:
No harm done.

sealover wrote:
Bicarbonate, monovalent oxyanion, carbonate oxyanions.

Unambiguous definition of terms.

Bicarbonate is a monovalent oxyanion with 1 equivalents per mole ANC.

sealover wrote:
Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion with 2 equivalents per mole ANC.

sealover wrote:
Carbonate and bicarbonate anions are both "carbonates" in the "carbonate system" that buffers the sea.

sealover wrote:
ANC is acid neutralizing capacity.

Acid neutralizing capacity is alkalinity.

sealover wrote:
Let us calculate the alkalinity of pure, pH 7 water.

That is the easiest alkalinity calculation of them all.

The already gave us the answer when they told us the pH.

They did the work for us and it is 0.0000001 moles ANC per liter.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Let us calculate the alkalinity of pure, pH 7 water.

That is the easiest alkalinity calculation of them all.

The already gave us the answer when they told us the pH.

They did the work for us and it is 0.0000001 moles ANC per liter.

No calculation presented. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

sealover wrote:
Let's try this again.

This is LITERALLY THE EASIEST ALKALINITY CALCULATION THERE IS
100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water.
Come on!
Surely your math isn't as poor as your chemistry.
You can do this!
Let's see if you can figure out what happened.
I'll bet you won't get it even after I spell it out more clearly.
You see, I learned enough in ONE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASS TO DO THIS
Indeed, a formidable opponent.
Now go away if you don't understand the most basic fundamental should have been learned in eighth grade science.
What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001..

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Let's try this again.

This is LITERALLY THE EASIEST ALKALINITY CALCULATION THERE IS
100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water.
Come on!
Surely your math isn't as poor as your chemistry.
You can do this!
Let's see if you can figure out what happened.
I'll bet you won't get it even after I spell it out more clearly.
You see, I learned enough in ONE HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASS TO DO THIS
Indeed, a formidable opponent.
Now go away if you don't understand the most basic fundamental should have been learned in eighth grade science.
What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001..

Spamming. Trolling. No calculation presented. No math presented. No chemistry presented. Science isn't a grade in school. No apparent purpose to this pivot fallacy. No argument presented.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:This may be the last time I reply to one of your posts.

Thank you. Thus far you have only been wasting bandwidth.

sealover wrote:Personal insults rarely win a scientific debate.

How would you know? You have never debated any science. You apparently don't know any science to debate.

You don't even know what it means to define your terms.

You don't even know the difference between science and religion.

You can't even express your supposed "point" in your own words in plain English.

You are a moron who is trying to convince intelligent people that you are somehow an expert in science. How do you think that is going to work out for you?

sealover wrote:You are right about one thing. I "don't have a degree in chemistry". That would mean I have only one such degree.

Too funny! Just after claiming that you are not expecting to garner respect based on "credentials" you try to squeeze in the above statement.

I, for one, am not buying your claims of education. You have demonstrated nothing but scientific illiteracy and really lame excuses.

Is there a reason you refuse to simply state your point in plain English for others to scrutinize? Are you ashamed of whatever position/belief that you hold?

Check your posts. No point whatsoever. No science whatsoever. No demonstration of understanding any science.

Wait! ... you did try to make one point, i.e. that flourishing plant life has created a "dead zone."

For everyone else reading this, the new Climate Change threat is "hypoxic zones" that are areas of ocean that are low on oxygen. This gets hyped to "it's a death zone that is killing fish" and becomes an urgent call to regulate, not CO2, but "nutrients." Yes, "nutrients" are now a bad thing that must be regulated by the world's governments in order to save the planet. It differs not from Global Warming. Here is an "official" description of the hypoxic ground zero in the Gulf of Mexico. It will sound all too familiar:

Scientists are forecasting this summer's Gulf of Mexico hypoxic area or "dead zone" – an area of low to no oxygen that can kill fish and other marine life – to be approximately 6,700 square miles, larger than the long-term average measured size of 5,387 square miles but substantially less than the record of 8,776 square miles set in 2017. The annual prediction is based on U.S. Geological Survey river-flow and nutrient data.

Can you spot the booolsch't?

sealover wrote:As for calling me a "liar". WTF?

How many times do you need me to repeat it?

You're a liar. I explained why. Go back and read.

sealover wrote:Sounds like you know a lot about Davis. You got my number, all right.

Do they still have the cow with the open side?

sealover wrote:It also sounds like a waste of time to try to discuss science with you.

I would greatly appreciate you ceasing and desisting pretending that you have anything to contribute in the way of a science discussion. Of course it would be a waste of time for you to pretend to lecture anyone here on science because you don't know any.

You are certainly welcome to ask questions and to learn from people who do know science, but if your definition of "try to discuss science" involves you preaching booolsch't while everyone else just responds "Amen, brother!" then yes, just sit in the corner and shut the F up.

Let's just get this out of the way. You didn't come here to learn. You came here to have everyone read your stupid document, like no one has anything better to do with his time than to become indoctrinated into the next Climate Change scam.

Prove me wrong.

sealover wrote:
pH 7 = 0.0000001 moles per liter H+ = 0.0000001 moles per liter OH-
...deleted excess...

sealover wrote:
"Unambiguous definition" for "alkalinity" is now, as before, ANC.
Sorry if you still don't get it.
Please stop wasting space on my thread.
It makes it hard to find the good stuff.
I've got a surplus of quotes from you already.
I can't imagine you'll come with anything even more revealing than what we've got from you already.

Good bye.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
"Unambiguous definition" for "alkalinity" is now, as before, ANC.
Sorry if you still don't get it.
Please stop wasting space on my thread.
It makes it hard to find the good stuff.
I've got a surplus of quotes from you already.
I can't imagine you'll come with anything even more revealing than what we've got from you already.

Good bye.

Buzzword fallacy. Arrogance. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. ANC>

Alkalinity is the opposite of acidity.

At pH 7, alkalinity and acidity are equal if the only source of acid neutralizing capacity are the hydroxide ions, OH-. Pure water is such an example.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. ANC>

Alkalinity is the opposite of acidity.

At pH 7, alkalinity and acidity are equal if the only source of acid neutralizing capacity are the hydroxide ions, OH-. Pure water is such an example.

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

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
"Unambiguous definition" for "alkalinity" is now, as before, ANC.
Sorry if you still don't get it.
Please stop wasting space on my thread.
It makes it hard to find the good stuff.
I've got a surplus of quotes from you already.
I can't imagine you'll come with anything even more revealing than what we've got from you already.

Good bye.

Buzzword fallacy. Arrogance. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.

sealover wrote:
All acid neutralizing capacity from oxyanions of acids
Acid base chemistry back to the basics.
Acid is opposite of alkaline.
Acid things push protons into solution, lowering pH.
Alkaline things neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Alkalinity is the capacity to neutralize protons out of solution, raising pH.
Virtually all the world's alkalinity is derived from oxyanions.
Carbonate is a divalent oxyanion of inorganic carbon.
The acid neutralizaton is the protonation of an oxyanion. The divalent (two negative charges per ion) oxyanion, is the fully deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid known as carbonic acid.
Hydroxide is an oxyanion. OH- . Monovalent oxyanion.
Sulfate is an oxyanion, divalent, and it is the fully deprotonated form of the strongly acidic acid known as sulfuric acid.
Acetate is a monovalent oxyanion, the deprotonated form of the weakly acidic acid, acetic acid (vinegar).
What they all have in common is the importance of a proton coming off or going on to an oxygen atom.
Acid neutralizing capacity is all about the oxyanions.

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

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.

Forget about posting gibberish papers.

Just explain your point in your own words.

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

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.

Forget about posting gibberish papers.

Just explain your point in your own words.

sealover wrote: You knew I was a chemistry faker from the start.

... to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

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

When coastal wetlands are drained for agriculture, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Aerobic oxidation of pyrite by bacteria generates sulfuric acid. In the undisturbed state, the wetland was a source of alkalinity for the sea. After being drained, the wetland exports acidity.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: You knew I was a chemistry faker from the start.

I knew you were a liar from the start.

In your very first post on this site, you wrote this:

... to increase their output of alkalinity to neutralize ocean acidification.

... and when I suggested you learn basic chemistry, that the ocean has never acidified, you responded with this:

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

... and like all liars who can't keep their lies straight, you had just finished posting this:

When coastal wetlands are drained for agriculture, buried pyrite is exposed to oxygen. Aerobic oxidation of pyrite by bacteria generates sulfuric acid. In the undisturbed state, the wetland was a source of alkalinity for the sea. After being drained, the wetland exports acidity.

None of this is commonly understood. You were not trying to be understood by anyone. You were trying to baffle your audience with gibberbabble in order to fool your audience into believing you are so very smart, which you wouldn't have to do if you were actually smart. I realized, however, that you actually have some chemistry background because you were quick to acknowledge that the ocean is not acidifying, however your claims that the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity shows that have been indoctrinated into the Climate Change cult, which requires the discarding and ultimately the disdain for science, instead referring to your WACKY religion as "science" ... or rather as "thettled thienth."

Hint: The US Navy Research Labs (NRL) has found zero evidence of any changes in the ocean's pH. Nobody studies ocean water like NRL, all over the globe, at all depths, for all parameters. Why do you believe there is some sort of crisis/threat/danger? What do you know that NRL does not?

Then you staunchly refused to define any of your terms.

Then you staunchly refused to answer any questions.

Your blatant dishonesty would have been patently obvious to a room full of blind men.

Then you transformed into Thunder-Troll and began spamming this board to spite those who were discussing the science your religion abhors and demonizes.

Basically, you shouldn't be wondering how everyone knew you were a dishonest troll looking to hijack the board. Nonetheless, no one here is looking to ban you, and you aren't going to get anywhere trying to get people banned ... or censored ... or their posts deleted.

sealover wrote:
I guess it takes one to know one.

You knew I was a chemistry faker from the start.

sealover wrote:
Too many hours already invested in the library here.

sealover wrote:
You think I want to have to write all those science lessons out again?

sealover wrote:
That took some time and effort.

I'm going to build on it, not abandon it.
...deleted excess...

sealover wrote:
Too many hours already invested in the library here.

sealover wrote:
You think I want to have to write all those science lessons out again?

sealover wrote:
That took some time and effort.

I'm going to build on it, not abandon it.
...deleted excess...

sealover wrote:
I certainly would have had to flunk you.
...deleted excess...

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity of pH 7, pure water. Why it is 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC.

"I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you AGAIN." - Ignoramus

What does the value of pH 7 tell us about the alkalinity of pure water?

EVERTHING!

With pH 7 provided as data, we just regurgitate what they calculated.

At pH 7, the activity of the OH- hydroxide ion is 0.0000001 moles per liter.

The only oxyanions present in pure water to provide acid neutralizing capacity are hydroxide.

Pure water has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC. Acid neutralizing capacity.

And let us thank Ignoramus for helping me make that more clear.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Alkalinity of pH 7, pure water. Why it is 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC.

"I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you AGAIN." - Ignoramus

What does the value of pH 7 tell us about the alkalinity of pure water?

EVERTHING!

With pH 7 provided as data, we just regurgitate what they calculated.

At pH 7, the activity of the OH- hydroxide ion is 0.0000001 moles per liter.

The only oxyanions present in pure water to provide acid neutralizing capacity are hydroxide.

Pure water has 0.0000001 moles per liter ANC. Acid neutralizing capacity.

And let us thank Ignoramus for helping me make that more clear.

No calculation presented. Spamming. No argument presented.

sealover wrote:
We hold these truths to be self evident.

Whereupon it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity of a solution arising from oxyanions.
...deleted excess noise...

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

sealover wrote:
pH change is not in linear proportion with hydrogen ion activity = "commensurate"
...deleted excess noise...

sealover wrote:
pH change is not in linear proportion with hydrogen ion activity = "commensurate"

It is important to remember that pH 4 is not only half as acidic as pH 2.

pH 10 doesn't have only twice as much hydroxide ion activity as pH 5.

In fact, pH 2 is 100 times as acidic as pH 4.

pH 10 is 100,000 times as alkaline as pH 5.

The pH scale is not linear, but differences between pH values are commensurate with difference between hydrogen ion activities represented.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...

Into the Night wrote:
...repairing severe quoting damage...

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...

Still can't get your head wrapped around pH or buffers, can ya?
Still can't get your head wrapped around how to handle quoting in this forum, can ya?

Into the Night wrote:
...repairing severe quoting damage...

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!
...deleted excessive noise...

Still can't get your head wrapped around pH or buffers, can ya?
Still can't get your head wrapped around how to handle quoting in this forum, can ya?

sealover wrote:
Science is not science. Debate is not debate.
...
"Alkaline": Is is a verb, noun, or adjective?
...deleted excess noise...

sealover wrote:
Science is not science. Debate is not debate.

I'll leave it for the historians to decide who provided a more meaningful explanation for pH, buffers, alkalinity etc.

If I fail to ever win respect for my scientific competence from Parrot Boy or I BE DUMB UGLY CLOWN...

Well, my self esteem kind of depends on it.

I always wanted a real scientist to think that I'm smart.

Not making any headway, am I?

So much science that I just can't seem to wrap my head around.

Makes me feel inadequate to have my ignorance exposed.

"You cannot acidify an alkaline." maybe you can't. I guess I won't try to acidify any alkalines. Thanks for clearing that up!

I notice the spell checker thingy doesn't want me to use "alkaline" as a noun.

THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T ACIDIFY IT!

You can't verb a verb. You can only verb nouns. I get it now.

sealover wrote:
pH 10 is 100000 time as alkaline as pH 5. Could have 100000 times LESS ALKALINITY!

To further clarify the important distinction between the terms "alkaline" and "alkalinity", and to further reveal the significance of pH as a master variable revealing the balance between acidity and acid neutralizing capacity...

I am going to make two solutions.

One is pH 5. One is pH 10.

One is 100000 times as alkaline as the other, pH 10 over pH 5.

One has 100000 times as much alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity) as the other, pH 5 over pH 10.

Wha wha wha WHAT?

Yes, a pH 5 solution with 100000 times as much alkalinity as a pH 10 solution.

IT'S EASY!

Our first solution is easy to make. Pure water adjusted to pH 10 with hydroxide.

Hydroxide is the only oxyanion in solution to supply acid neutralizing capacity.

At pH 10, this solution has 0.0001 moles acid neutralizing capacity per liter because hydroxide is the only oxyanion species present to provide ANC.

In this pure water adjusted to pH 10, the total chemical activity of hydrogen ion activity is 100000 less than the chemical activity activity of hydrogen in pure water adjusted to pH 5 with strong mineral acid.

Okay, now let's make a pH 5 solution that has 100000 times as much alkalinity as the first pH 10 solution.

The first pH 10 solution, pure water adjusted to pH 10 with strong hydroxide base. It has 0.0001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

Our next solution will have pH 5.

Our next solution will have 10 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity. At pH 5.

How does the magic trick work?

I made a buffer solution of a carboxylic organic acid.

Organic acid X has a pKa of exactly 5. How convenient.

I took two moles of organic acid X and dissolved it into one liter of pure water.

Then I took sodium hydroxide and adjusted the mix to pH 5.

With pKa exactly 5, my mix has exactly half the original 2 moles of organic acid X now in the form of organic acid Xate oxyanion.

At pH 5, my mix now has 10 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

The other mix, at pH 10, has only 0.0001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity.

A pH 10 solution Could have 100000 times LESS alkalinity than a pH 5 solution!

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

sealover wrote:
pH change is not in linear proportion with hydrogen ion activity = "commensurate"

It is important to remember that pH 4 is not only half as acidic as pH 2.

pH 10 doesn't have only twice as much hydroxide ion activity as pH 5.

In fact, pH 2 is 100 times as acidic as pH 4.

pH 10 is 100,000 times as alkaline as pH 5.

The pH scale is not linear, but differences between pH values are commensurate with difference between hydrogen ion activities represented.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Let's try this again.

How about we try this again without you pivoting? I realize that math is not your bailiwick so I'll give you a pass. Let me spell it out for you again (please pay attention this time).

sealover wrote:100% total alkalinity arises from OH- in pure water. What is wrong with this picture. pH 7. come on, you can do it 0.0000001.

If you'll recall I had to correct you regarding the exponential nature of the scale. You were confusing it with the logarithmic pH value.

Here, you made the same error again. You were asking about an alkalinity value while pointing to the exponential pH scale. It's like you habitually confuse the two. Maybe you have some form of BiogeoAlzheimers.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we were able to identify that problem in time for you to correct it without having to make too much/many errata.

sealover wrote:
CORRECTION: ONE mole per liter ANC, NOT TEN moles per liter ANC.

My dyslexia kicked in and you probably noticed the glaring error in the imaginary pH 5 organic acid buffer solution.

I started with TWO MOLES of "organic acid X" (pKa = 5).

When I brought it to pH 5 with hydroxide, I somehow got TEN MOLES of acid neutralizing capacity from the deprotonated "organic acid Xate".

It is easier to split 2 moles acid and get 1 mole ANC, than it is to split 2 moles acid and get 10 moles ANC.

Didn't notice the mistake for about three more calculations.

That's not chemistry!

It's MAGIC!

No, it's dyslexia.

sealover wrote:NONE OF THIS IS CITABLE.