Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean > Page 22

Page 22 of 22

03-05-2026 18:48
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Robert Wagner wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now? ... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention. I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll. I hope that the image of the cute little girl laughing shows up. It was Robert Wagner's breath of fresh air, and I hope we can see that little girl again. She was laughing at IBdaMann purporting to have "taught" Robert Wagner about how buffering works.
03-05-2026 18:50
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Robert Wagner wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now? ... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention. I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll. What was so silly that the little girl is laughing at? Well, sealover said, "If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH." IBdaMann responded by correcting the "mistake" "If you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0), and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann You ARE sealover, Robert. You're the only one with socks here. I already know you don't any thing about acids or alkalines. You don't have to prove it. Here's the best part. IBdaMann says "...and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well." He plays that "See? I taught YOU!" bullshit every step of the way. It turns out that IBdaMann taught ME that pH can go below zero. He used math and everything! "pH = -ln(H+)" said IBdaMann. That meant that the 1.5 M nitric acid solution really DID have pH below zero. But that was long after he insisted that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, and that pure water was MORE BUFFERED than sea water to resist pH change upon addition of a drop of acid. Since he never actually studied chemistry or used "pH" in any math applications, he didn't realize that the logarithm was BASE TEN. pH = -log(H+). But every step of the way, when IBdaMann realized he was just wrong, he pretended that the CORRECT position had actually been his all along and HE was the one who taught it to YOU. "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius.." (the line IBdaMann used to address me), what did you teach Robert Wagner about "buffering"? Did you tell him about the "exponential change to basicity", the "delta(solution)" equation where the "magnitude of effect" could be calculated, and how "change to the acid" accounts for why you said pure water was so much better buffered than sea water against pH change? Well pure water does "buffer" the acid by DILUTION, and as IBdaMann explains, the sea is "limitless" in its capacity to mitigate pollution with infinite dilution. Besides, all the carbonic acid in sea water just "evaporates", right? So, you've got these two scientifically illiterate trolls who, literally, don't even know what pH or buffering IS. But they sure have a LOT to say as experts in science, and they just never seem to stop trolling. You cannot acidify an alkaline, apparently. And it turns out that carbonate is NOT a chemical, precisely, so "carbonate" is meaningless in discussion of ocean acidification. Carbonate chemistry doesn't exist because carbonate is not a chemical, and has no chemical behavior to speak of. I remain true to my RELIGIOUS FAITH in the firm belief that sulfate CAN be reduced, and their IS "such a thing" as the inorganic carbon product of anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon. I believe, I believe, I believe that the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering is REAL. With blind faith I cling to the belief in submarine groundwater discharge as the vehicle of transport that provides most of the carbonate ions entering the sea. I worship a false god of biogeochemistry. Somebody needs to remind me that I am a scientifically illiterate moron. No, worse than that. I'm deceptively advancing an EVIL agenda, fraudulently presenting myself as a "scientist", perhaps just totally gullible as a Marxist puppet, or one of the most evil of knowing conspirators... IBdaMann and Into the Night, providing quality assurance at climate-debate.com
03-05-2026 21:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Robert Wagner wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now? ... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention. I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll. I hope that the image of the cute little girl laughing shows up. It was Robert Wagner's breath of fresh air, and I hope we can see that little girl again. She was laughing at IBdaMann purporting to have "taught" Robert Wagner about how buffering works. You don't know what a buffer is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-05-2026 21:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Here's the best part.... Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-05-2026 00:32
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Here's the best part.... Stop spamming. Chemistry pHraud! pHake "chemist"! pHucking pHool! YARP! RQAA! Fallacy Mantra. Science is not a chemical. Something is not something else that it is not. I suspect that this has been an eye-opening experience for IBdaMann. A few years back, I think he believed you really WERE a "chemist". Now he knows that you not only never learned what pH was, you will never be able to learn what it is. You have displayed a learning disability. You don't even know how to "cheat" and look up a correct definition for pH and copy it, pretend that you knew it all along. IBdaMann has no more illusions that your chemistry competence extends beyond fireworks. Edited on 04-05-2026 00:54
04-05-2026 02:26
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea. That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory! sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity. Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity. Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion. sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions. Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space. sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too. sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH. That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely. sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion. The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"? Actually, I HAVE done the math. The impact of the drop of acid on a liter of pure water would be about 2000x as pronounced as the impact on a liter of sea water. Sea water is buffered against pH change by bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Pure water is not.
04-05-2026 19:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Actually, I HAVE done the math. The impact of the drop of acid on a liter of pure water would be about 2000x as pronounced as the impact on a liter of sea water. Sea water is buffered against pH change by bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Pure water is not. Bad math. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Water is a buffer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-05-2026 20:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	My favorite IBdaMann line from this one is, "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius.." I suspect that IBdaMann believed he was being SARCASTIC. Because it really does "take one to know one". Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea. That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory! sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity. Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity. Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion. sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions. Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space. sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too. sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH. That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely. sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion. The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"? Actually, I HAVE done the math. The impact of the drop of acid on a liter of pure water would be about 2000x as pronounced as the impact on a liter of sea water. Sea water is buffered against pH change by bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. Pure water is not.
06-05-2026 21:58
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	DEFINE YOUR TERMS! "Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry." - Into the Night "Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry." - Into the Night Actually I drew attention to the "concept of buffering", particularly when I referred to the "sea's carbonate buffer system" Into the Night has NEVER defined his terms for even the most "basic" concepts of pH buffering. This post was the first time I ever saw him use the term, until I was directed by IBdaMann to an old post "Into the Night's comments" in which it was explained that "water itself is a buffer for acid" Into the Night, I know it is a LOST CAUSE to get you to reveal your SECRET definition for "pH". What do you think you are saying when you say "buffer"? Help me understand how "water itself is a buffer for acid" Because where I got MY chemistry degrees, they taught us that a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid that enables an aqueous solution to resist pH change upon addition of acid. In the ocean, one such "weak acid" is carbonic acid, H2CO3. Its conjugate base is the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- the bicarbonate ion supplies about nine tenths of the ocean's alkalinity. The sea's average alkalinity is about 2.3 millimoles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or about 115 milligrams per liter as CaCO3 equivalents. Another even weaker acid in sea water is the bicarbonate ion, HCO3-. HCO3- = H+ + CO3(2-) the conjugate base of the very weak acid bicarbonate ion is the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-). The carbonate ion supplies about one tenth of the ocean's alkalinity, or pH buffering capacity. So that's the definition of "buffer" that I was taught. I don't get the impression you were taught ANY definition for "buffer", the concept of which you ignore. Please share your SECRET definition of "buffer" or "buffering" so that I can understand how the heck it is that "Water itself is a buffer for acid". quote]Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: one more attempt to attach a file The ocean absorbs more than a third of our carbon dioxide emissions. Nope. It is not possible to measure 'our' CO2 emissions, nor the CO2 emissions of any nation. The CO2 concentrate in the ocean matches that of the air. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentrate of the atmosphere (or of the oceans). CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere (or the oceans). sealover wrote: The ocean's alkalinity has been depleted ("acidification"). It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not uniform. sealover wrote: The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system has shifted. There is no such thing. Learn what 'buffering' means in chemistry. sealover wrote: Carbonic acid is now more abundant, and carbonate ion is relatively more scarce. More made up shit. Carbonic acid forms anywhere there is dissolved CO2 in water. Carbonic acid also forms dissolved CO2 in water. The two reactions form an equilibrium, with only a very small percentage existing as carbonic acid at any given time. sealover wrote: Deficiency of carbonate impedes shell formation in marine life. No. It's CRITICAL for shellfish to exist. Carbonic acid helps to break down the limestone in the ocean floor and make it available to shellfish to form their shells. sealover wrote: Commercial aquaculture must now artificially add alkalinity to raise healthy stocks. You don't have that ability. Man does not have that ability. Again, you ignore the concept of buffering in chemistry.[/quote]
06-05-2026 22:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: [b]DEFINE YOUR TERMS! ...deleted remaining irrelevance... Your pretending is not going to help you Robert. Irrelevance fallacy. Your own fear of CO2 is YOUR problem. You ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-05-2026 23:37
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Robert Wagner wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Robert Wagner wrote:So you just learned about buffer solutions now? ... and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well. I do hope you were paying attention. I've known about buffer solutions for over 30 years, poor delusional troll. What was so silly that the little girl is laughing at? Well, sealover said, "If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH." IBdaMann responded by correcting the "mistake" "If you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0), and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." - IBdaMann You ARE sealover, Robert. You're the only one with socks here. I already know you don't any thing about acids or alkalines. You don't have to prove it. Here's the best part. IBdaMann says "...and now that I have taught you, you should know it as well." He plays that "See? I taught YOU!" bullshit every step of the way. It turns out that IBdaMann taught ME that pH can go below zero. He used math and everything! "pH = -ln(H+)" said IBdaMann. That meant that the 1.5 M nitric acid solution really DID have pH below zero. But that was long after he insisted that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0, and that pure water was MORE BUFFERED than sea water to resist pH change upon addition of a drop of acid. Since he never actually studied chemistry or used "pH" in any math applications, he didn't realize that the logarithm was BASE TEN. pH = -log(H+). But every step of the way, when IBdaMann realized he was just wrong, he pretended that the CORRECT position had actually been his all along and HE was the one who taught it to YOU. "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius.." (the line IBdaMann used to address me), what did you teach Robert Wagner about "buffering"? Did you tell him about the "exponential change to basicity", the "delta(solution)" equation where the "magnitude of effect" could be calculated, and how "change to the acid" accounts for why you said pure water was so much better buffered than sea water against pH change? Well pure water does "buffer" the acid by DILUTION, and as IBdaMann explains, the sea is "limitless" in its capacity to mitigate pollution with infinite dilution. Besides, all the carbonic acid in sea water just "evaporates", right? So, you've got these two scientifically illiterate trolls who, literally, don't even know what pH or buffering IS. But they sure have a LOT to say as experts in science, and they just never seem to stop trolling. You cannot acidify an alkaline, apparently. And it turns out that carbonate is NOT a chemical, precisely, so "carbonate" is meaningless in discussion of ocean acidification. Carbonate chemistry doesn't exist because carbonate is not a chemical, and has no chemical behavior to speak of. I remain true to my RELIGIOUS FAITH in the firm belief that sulfate CAN be reduced, and their IS "such a thing" as the inorganic carbon product of anaerobic oxidation of organic carbon. I believe, I believe, I believe that the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering is REAL. With blind faith I cling to the belief in submarine groundwater discharge as the vehicle of transport that provides most of the carbonate ions entering the sea. I worship a false god of biogeochemistry. Somebody needs to remind me that I am a scientifically illiterate moron. No, worse than that. I'm deceptively advancing an EVIL agenda, fraudulently presenting myself as a "scientist", perhaps just totally gullible as a Marxist puppet, or one of the most evil of knowing conspirators... IBdaMann and Into the Night, providing quality assurance at climate-debate.com STOP SPAMMING EVERY THREAD, Into the Night!
07-05-2026 21:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: ...removed irrelevant material... STOP SPAMMING EVERY THREAD, Into the Night! I'm not spamming anything, Robert. YOU ARE. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-05-2026 21:26
08-05-2026 09:22
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	I nominate THIS post for the climate-debate.com Hall of Fame 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.
08-05-2026 19:33
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	I nominate THIS post for the climate-debate.com Hall of Fame 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. The blue highlighted boxes for "Ocean Acidification Debunked" and "Into the Night's comments" are safe links to open, and HILARIOUS. From "Into the Night's comments" EXACT quotes: "CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline. A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid (italics added). This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer." "These idiots aren't chemists. I am..."
08-05-2026 21:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: I nominate THIS post for the climate-debate.com Hall of Fame No one requesting a hall of fame of posts, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2026 21:09
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I nominate THIS post for the climate-debate.com Hall of Fame No one requesting a hall of fame of posts, Robert. STILL don't know what a "buffer" is, eh? "Water itself is a buffer for acid" - YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) Nope. Any other guesses? That's okay, you can keep your definition for "buffer" a SECRET! Because "You cannot acidify an alkaline", right? Sounds like a real "chemist"... What chemical properties of water make it a buffer for acid? The conjugate base may be hydroxide, but the pKa is SEVEN! At pH 7 water has just as much (OH-) as it does (H+). But given that alkalinity (acid neutralizing capacity) is measured/reported as moles per liter acid that can be neutralized (or grams per liter CaCO3 equiv.), "Water itself is a buffer" falls short. Only 0.0000001 moles per liter hydroxide ion present to do any "buffering"... Maybe a REAL chemist will reveal the SECRET explanation... No, YARP will just insist it's all "buzzwords".
10-05-2026 21:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted irrelevant material... Irrelevance fallacy. Fixation. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-05-2026 21:29
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Dredge Spoils, Acid Sulfate Soils! I was surprised to discover that an invited chemistry presentation that I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 can be found on the Internet. https://dots.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2008-04-15-doer-20_SPK_DMAttenuation_Northup.pdf I don't know if this will show up as an actual link, or just a website address that I typed for others to copy. It is HIGHLY relevant to the topic of this thread. From the title page: "Dredged Material and Acid Sulfate Soils Biogeochemistry of Upland Placement of Dredged Sediments on Delta Peatland Soils Sediment pH and Attenuation of Arsenic, Copper, Nitrate Nitrogen, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Robert R. Northup, Ph.D. rnorthup@nature.berkeley.edu" My presentation was on the second day of the US Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Conference, in Sacramento, California, April 16, 2008. Note how the US government facilitates the publication of "buzzwords" such as "biogeochemistry" and "organic carbon". The US Army Corps of Engineers seemed to be under the impression that this PhD character knew something about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils", as if I were some kind of "chemist" I've got EVERYONE fooled except YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) and IBdaMann. YARP, I double dog DARE you to open this US Army Corps of Engineers document on the Internet, the address listed above, ending in "...Attenuation_Northup.pdf" You can prove you know more about the chemistry of pyrite oxidation, for example, by explaining the chemistry of what is WRONG with my 2008 presentation to the US Army Corps of Engineers. You don't have to say what "pH" or "buffering" actually IS, just show what's wrong with MY presentation about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils". The first one is a freebie: "There is NO SUCH THING as 'acid sulfate soil'. Buzzword!" And you can list all the other "no such thing" and "buzzword" and "something is not something else" to prove that I just do not understand chemistry. And readers will benefit from your CORRECT chemistry lesson. 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.
11-05-2026 21:46
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	Let's see if the "..Attenuation_Northup.pdf" file from the US Army Corps of Engineers website can be made into a link someone could open. without having to copy and type in the whole website address. Hopefully it is the "url" button. Dredge Spoils, Acid Sulfate Soils! I was surprised to discover that an invited chemistry presentation that I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 can be found on the Internet. [url] https://dots.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2008-04-15-doer-20 SPK DMAttenuation Northup.pdf[/url] I don't know if this will show up as an actual link, or just a website address that I typed for others to copy. It is HIGHLY relevant to the topic of this thread. From the title page: "Dredged Material and Acid Sulfate Soils Biogeochemistry of Upland Placement of Dredged Sediments on Delta Peatland Soils Sediment pH and Attenuation of Arsenic, Copper, Nitrate Nitrogen, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Robert R. Northup, Ph.D. rnorthup@nature.berkeley.edu" My presentation was on the second day of the US Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Conference, in Sacramento, California, April 16, 2008. Note how the US government facilitates the publication of "buzzwords" such as "biogeochemistry" and "organic carbon". The US Army Corps of Engineers seemed to be under the impression that this PhD character knew something about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils", as if I were some kind of "chemist" I've got EVERYONE fooled except YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) and IBdaMann. YARP, I double dog DARE you to open this US Army Corps of Engineers document on the Internet, the address listed above, ending in "...Attenuation_Northup.pdf" You can prove you know more about the chemistry of pyrite oxidation, for example, by explaining the chemistry of what is WRONG with my 2008 presentation to the US Army Corps of Engineers. You don't have to say what "pH" or "buffering" actually IS, just show what's wrong with MY presentation about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils". The first one is a freebie: "There is NO SUCH THING as 'acid sulfate soil'. Buzzword!" And you can list all the other "no such thing" and "buzzword" and "something is not something else" to prove that I just do not understand chemistry. And readers will benefit from your CORRECT chemistry lesson. 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. Edited on 11-05-2026 21:49
11-05-2026 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Dredge Spoils, Acid Sulfate Soils! I was surprised to discover that an invited chemistry presentation that I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 can be found on the Internet. ...deleted irrelevant material and whining... You deny chemistry, Robert. You deny science. You continue to discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2026 03:46
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Dredge Spoils, Acid Sulfate Soils! I was surprised to discover that an invited chemistry presentation that I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 can be found on the Internet. https://dots.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2008-04-15-doer-20_SPK_DMAttenuation_Northup.pdf I don't know if this will show up as an actual link, or just a website address that I typed for others to copy. It is HIGHLY relevant to the topic of this thread. From the title page: "Dredged Material and Acid Sulfate Soils Biogeochemistry of Upland Placement of Dredged Sediments on Delta Peatland Soils Sediment pH and Attenuation of Arsenic, Copper, Nitrate Nitrogen, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Robert R. Northup, Ph.D. rnorthup@nature.berkeley.edu" My presentation was on the second day of the US Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Conference, in Sacramento, California, April 16, 2008. Note how the US government facilitates the publication of "buzzwords" such as "biogeochemistry" and "organic carbon". The US Army Corps of Engineers seemed to be under the impression that this PhD character knew something about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils", as if I were some kind of "chemist" I've got EVERYONE fooled except YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) and IBdaMann. YARP, I double dog DARE you to open this US Army Corps of Engineers document on the Internet, the address listed above, ending in "...Attenuation_Northup.pdf" You can prove you know more about the chemistry of pyrite oxidation, for example, by explaining the chemistry of what is WRONG with my 2008 presentation to the US Army Corps of Engineers. You don't have to say what "pH" or "buffering" actually IS, just show what's wrong with MY presentation about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils". The first one is a freebie: "There is NO SUCH THING as 'acid sulfate soil'. Buzzword!" And you can list all the other "no such thing" and "buzzword" and "something is not something else" to prove that I just do not understand chemistry. And readers will benefit from your CORRECT chemistry lesson. 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.
12-05-2026 04:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	Why did John Headlee of the Corps of Engineers think it was important to invite a biogeochemist to give a presentation at a dredging conference? If you don't take the time to see the presentation on the Internet, the single most important reason for the presentation was to disabuse the engineers of a serious misconception about "managing" the pH of dewatered dredge sediments. I showed them all the water quality benefits of allowing the sediments to ripen to a pH of about 4-6. Pseudo chemists had convinced State regulators that dredged sediments who require "pH adjustment" up to within 0.5 pH units of that magic pH 7 which is somehow optimal.. I showed them how this released a lot of arsenic into groundwater, increased groundwater copper concentrations, dramatically increased export of TDS and salinity to surface water, and more than tripled export of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to surface waters. I had a very friendly and receptive audience among those engineers. I had successfully gotten the regulators to back off and rescind all mandates for "pH adjustment" (aka environmental chemotherapy) and rescind the designation of the sediments as "hazardous waste" requiring costly disposal. I showed them how dredged sediment actually IMPROVE the quality of underlying ground water and drainage waters from the sites where they were placed upland. Just let them ripen to a safe pH of about 4-6, and DON'T provoke release of arsenic, copper, salts galore, dissolved organic carbon enough to provoke hypoxia, by artificially raising the pH with exogenous alkaline materials, such as the beet lime they applied to stir up so much trouble. Im a BM wrote: Dredge Spoils, Acid Sulfate Soils! I was surprised to discover that an invited chemistry presentation that I gave to the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2008 can be found on the Internet. https://dots.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2008-04-15-doer-20_SPK_DMAttenuation_Northup.pdf I don't know if this will show up as an actual link, or just a website address that I typed for others to copy. It is HIGHLY relevant to the topic of this thread. From the title page: "Dredged Material and Acid Sulfate Soils Biogeochemistry of Upland Placement of Dredged Sediments on Delta Peatland Soils Sediment pH and Attenuation of Arsenic, Copper, Nitrate Nitrogen, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Robert R. Northup, Ph.D. rnorthup@nature.berkeley.edu" My presentation was on the second day of the US Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Conference, in Sacramento, California, April 16, 2008. Note how the US government facilitates the publication of "buzzwords" such as "biogeochemistry" and "organic carbon". The US Army Corps of Engineers seemed to be under the impression that this PhD character knew something about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils", as if I were some kind of "chemist" I've got EVERYONE fooled except YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) and IBdaMann. YARP, I double dog DARE you to open this US Army Corps of Engineers document on the Internet, the address listed above, ending in "...Attenuation_Northup.pdf" You can prove you know more about the chemistry of pyrite oxidation, for example, by explaining the chemistry of what is WRONG with my 2008 presentation to the US Army Corps of Engineers. You don't have to say what "pH" or "buffering" actually IS, just show what's wrong with MY presentation about "pH" and "Acid Sulfate Soils". The first one is a freebie: "There is NO SUCH THING as 'acid sulfate soil'. Buzzword!" And you can list all the other "no such thing" and "buzzword" and "something is not something else" to prove that I just do not understand chemistry. And readers will benefit from your CORRECT chemistry lesson. 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.
12-05-2026 19:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	sealover wrote: Why did John Headlee of the Corps of Engineers think it was important to invite a biogeochemist to give a presentation at a dredging conference? There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Hilarious! A 'dredging conference'??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! sealover wrote: I showed them all the water quality benefits of allowing the sediments to ripen to a pH of about 4-6. Pseudo chemists had convinced State regulators that dredged sediments who require "pH adjustment" up to within 0.5 pH units of that magic pH 7 which is somehow optimal.. I showed them how this released a lot of arsenic into groundwater, increased groundwater copper concentrations, dramatically increased export of TDS and salinity to surface water, and more than tripled export of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) to surface waters. Carbon is not organic. You deny chemistry. You deny science. Stop making shit up. sealover wrote: ...deleted remaining irrelevancy and spam... Irrelevance fallacy. You are still ignoring theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2026 16:33
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. Bold italics added for emphasis sealover didn't even say "thank you". So, pHuck you! ------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea. That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory! sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity. Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity. Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion. sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions. Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space. sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too. sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH. That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely. sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion. The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"? Edited on 14-05-2026 17:18
14-05-2026 19:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2026 01:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. ... long before teaching him about evaporation.
15-05-2026 17:47
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. Bold italics added for emphasis sealover didn't even say "thank you". So, pHuck you! ------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:If I take a liter of pure water and add just one drop of concentrated acid, I will see a huge drop in pH. So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is that if you were to get your hands on some magical acid whose pH is 0.0, and you were to add one single drop to one liter/litre of pure water (pH 7.0) and one single drop to one liter/litre of sea water (pH 8.4), the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water. Do the math. sealover wrote: Remember, this thread is about restoring "alkalinity" to the sea. That's like restoring white to snow. It's already there. Just go out and claim victory! sealover wrote:Alkalinity is another word for acid neutralizing capacity. Great circular definition ... and acidity is another word for alkaline neutralizing capacity. Acidity is the ability to provide a hydrogen ion. Alkalinity is the ability to accept a hydrogen ion. sealover wrote:The alkalinity of pure water arises entirely from hydroxide ions. Do you see what I mean? Only a scientifically illiterate moron would refer to the alkalinity of pure water. Next, you'll be talking about the temperature of deep space. sealover wrote:The overwhelming majority of the alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Let's not forget hydroxide, silicates and phosphates. They're people too. sealover wrote:A 30% depletion of the ocean's alkalinity has resulted in only a small decrease in pH. That's just one number so I can see how you could so easily pull that out of your arsewhole. I think it explains the stink quite nicely. sealover wrote:On the other hand, it has caused a HUGE change to the bioavailability of carbonate ion. The "bioavailability"? Don't you mean the "ecolobiquity"? ... or maybe the "presenvironance"? So, Mr. Thermodynamics Genius, the correct answer is that water EVAPORATES, depending on conditions of temperature, pressure, and humidity. Do the math.
15-05-2026 19:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. Bold italics added for emphasis sealover didn't even say "thank you". So, pHuck you! You are sealover, Robert. Stop pretending with your socks. Argument of the Stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2026 20:11
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. Bold italics added for emphasis sealover didn't even say "thank you". So, pHuck you! You are sealover, Robert. Stop pretending with your socks. Argument of the Stone fallacy. "Water itself is a buffer for acid." "Dilution is buffering." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." "pH is a ratio." - Into the Night "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is.." - IBdaMann The correct answer is, "NO, it's NOT!"
15-05-2026 23:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann teaches sealover what "buffering" is in sea water. Bold italics added for emphasis sealover didn't even say "thank you". So, pHuck you! You are sealover, Robert. Stop pretending with your socks. Argument of the Stone fallacy. "Water itself is a buffer for acid." "Dilution is buffering." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." "pH is a ratio." - Into the Night "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius, the correct answer is.." - IBdaMann The correct answer is, "NO, it's NOT!" Argument of the Stone fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-05-2026 05:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15126)	Im a BM wrote: The correct answer is, "NO, it's NOT!" Yes, it is, according to the unambiguous definition.
17-05-2026 18:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: The correct answer is, "NO, it's NOT!" Yes, it is, according to the unambiguous definition. "(anti scientific nonsense about water is a "buffer" and..)" "pH is a ratio" - ITN "Yes, it is, according to the unambiguous definition" - IBdaMann The "unambiguous definition" of pH is -log(H+), or the negative value of the base ten logarithm of the chemical activity of hydrogen ion in solution. How is pH a "ratio"? And why would it not be below zero in a solution with greater than 1.0 moles per liter (H+)? Into the Night can FINALLY teach us what "pH" REALLY is... He's a "chemist".
17-05-2026 18:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1953)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: The correct answer is, "NO, it's NOT!" Yes, it is, according to the unambiguous definition. "(anti scientific nonsense about water is a "buffer" and..)" "pH is a ratio" - ITN "Yes, it is, according to the unambiguous definition" - IBdaMann The "unambiguous definition" of pH is -log(H+), or the negative value of the base ten logarithm of the chemical activity of hydrogen ion in solution. How is pH a "ratio"? And why would it not be below zero in a solution with greater than 1.0 moles per liter (H+)? ------------------------------------ sealover: I feel compelled to interject here. The "unambiguous definition" of a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid. So, what is the WEAKEST acid of them all? HYDRIC ACID! Look it up. It ain't no "buzzword'. It's a genuine term in chemistry. It is the name of an actual "chemical". Hydric acid IS a chemical. Hydric acid is hydrogen hydroxide is water. Hydric acid, H2O, dissociates into H+, and its conjugate base OH-. H2O = H+ + OH-. The pKa of this acid dissociation is 7.0 For contrast, the pKa for hydrochloric acid dissociation is -7. Hydric acid is an incredibly WEAK acid. But it makes a LOUSY pH buffer. The weakest "buffer" of them all. And since the conjugate base, OH-, is present along with an equal concentration of H+ acid hydrogen ions, it can barely "buffer" itself from its own acidity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- So now Into the Night can FINALLY teach us what "pH" REALLY is, and explain WHY "water is an excellent pH buffer"... He's a "chemist".
17-05-2026 21:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.
19-05-2026 05:30
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:I have read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers in which the title includes the words "sulfate reduction". I misspoke previously. Now you have discarded any credibility you might have still had. Let's relish this revealing moment. 1. You believe that "peer reviewed" has something to do with science. 2. You think that science is a paper. 3. You believe that there is a certain quantity of document titles that makes any assertion become true. Allow me a moment to bask in the smoldering glow of your cognition acidification and its increase in bioavailability. I am seriously considering adding this to my sig block. . Apparently, "sulfate reduction" was controversial. "There is no such thing!" "Sulfate cannot be reduced", said YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) That sentence got repeated a lot. THREE YEARS LATER, something magical happened. YARP discovered that "sulfate is not a chemical". THAT sentence has been written now hundreds of times. It dismisses any reference to the chemical behavior of the sulfate anion, SO4(2-), because it is not a "chemical", and that's ALL anyone needs to say to explain the whole thing and "debunk" it. I pointed out that "sulfate reduction" is so commonly discussed that it appears in the title of thousands of papers. In doing so, I "discarded any credibility (I) might have still had" Tough audience! Sulfate reduction is very important in the context of this thread because it is the anaerobic microbial metabolic process that generates most of the carbonate, CO3(2-) anions in submarine groundwater discharge. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant) to oxidize organic carbon. Whereas aerobic decomposition/respiration or combustion creates CARBON DIOXIDE, CO2, anaerobic decomposition using oxyanions as terminal electron acceptor generates CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-). Perhaps carbonate and sulfate are just the first names of the anions of interest, and discussion of them can be meaningful even if they don't meet the most rigid definition standard to be called a "chemical".
19-05-2026 05:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: Apparently, "sulfate reduction" was controversial. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate reduction is very important in the context of this thread because it is the anaerobic microbial metabolic process that generates most of the carbonate, CO3(2-) anions in submarine groundwater discharge. Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant) to oxidize organic carbon. Whereas aerobic decomposition/respiration or combustion creates CARBON DIOXIDE, CO2, anaerobic decomposition using oxyanions as terminal electron acceptor generates CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-). Sulfate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps carbonate and sulfate are just the first names of the anions of interest, and discussion of them can be meaningful even if they don't meet the most rigid definition standard to be called a "chemical". Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Neither science nor chemistry are meaningless buzzwords, Robert. You still have not described what is 'changing' in climate. You still have not described what is 'changing' in the Earth. You still ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2026 17:45
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3283)	YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot), I will condescend to calling you "Into the Night" to draw you attention to why we want to discuss "carbonate" and "sulfate'. The voices in your head keep telling you that SOMEONE is claiming, "carbonate is a chemical" and "sulfate is a chemical". You keep shouting down your demon. "Carbonate" in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry refers to the CARBONATE ION, an oxyanion, CO3(2-). "Sulfate" in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry refers to the SULFATE ION, an oxyanion, SO4(2-). "Carbonate" dissolved in water does not travel alone. Its two negative charges must be balanced by nearby cation(s). Which cation travels with it can change instantaneously. Sodium is the cation who outnumbers all the others in sea water. Any carbonate ion or sulfate ion in sea water most likely has two sodium ions in very close proximity. But it could be potassium, calcium, magnesium, lithium, barium.. take your pick. When we look at the chemical behavior of sulfate ions or carbonate ions in solution, it makes little difference which cation accompanies them at any given moment. So, we just give the first name of the oxyanions, "sulfate", "carbonate", "bicarbonate". NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT "CARBONATE IS A 'CHEMICAL'"! NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT "SULFATE IS A 'CHEMICAL'"! And if the ONLY thing you know about their role in sea water chemistry is to say "carbonate is not a chemical" and "sulfate is not a chemical", then you know virtually nothing about sea water chemistry. That would be entirely consistent with your ABSURD assertions about pH and buffering, which can only define as "RQAA". "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Apparently, "sulfate reduction" was controversial. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate reduction is very important in the context of this thread because it is the anaerobic microbial metabolic process that generates most of the carbonate, CO3(2-) anions in submarine groundwater discharge. Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate as terminal electron acceptor (oxidant) to oxidize organic carbon. Whereas aerobic decomposition/respiration or combustion creates CARBON DIOXIDE, CO2, anaerobic decomposition using oxyanions as terminal electron acceptor generates CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-). Sulfate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps carbonate and sulfate are just the first names of the anions of interest, and discussion of them can be meaningful even if they don't meet the most rigid definition standard to be called a "chemical". Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Neither science nor chemistry are meaningless buzzwords, Robert. You still have not described what is 'changing' in climate. You still have not described what is 'changing' in the Earth. You still ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
20-05-2026 02:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (23896)	Im a BM wrote: YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot), I will condescend to calling you "Into the Night" to draw you attention to why we want to discuss "carbonate" and "sulfate'. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The voices in your head keep telling you that SOMEONE is claiming, "carbonate is a chemical" and "sulfate is a chemical". You keep shouting down your demon. "Carbonate" in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry refers to the CARBONATE ION, an oxyanion, CO3(2-). "Sulfate" in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry refers to the SULFATE ION, an oxyanion, SO4(2-). Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: "Carbonate" dissolved in water does not travel alone. Its two negative charges must be balanced by nearby cation(s). Which cation travels with it can change instantaneously. Sodium is the cation who outnumbers all the others in sea water. Any carbonate ion or sulfate ion in sea water most likely has two sodium ions in very close proximity. But it could be potassium, calcium, magnesium, lithium, barium.. take your pick. Carbonate is not a chemical. Don't try to put sodium in water unless you WANT spectacular results! Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: When we look at the chemical behavior of sulfate ions or carbonate ions in solution, it makes little difference which cation accompanies them at any given moment. So, we just give the first name of the oxyanions, "sulfate", "carbonate", "bicarbonate". Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT "CARBONATE IS A 'CHEMICAL'"! NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT "SULFATE IS A 'CHEMICAL'"! Don't try to deny your own posts. Im a BM wrote: And if the ONLY thing you know about their role in sea water chemistry is to say "carbonate is not a chemical" and "sulfate is not a chemical", then you know virtually nothing about sea water chemistry. Sea water is not chemistry. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted spam and whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 22 of 22

Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	614	20-05-2026 03:14
What the pHuck are bupHers, ocean acidipHication, and "pH"?	5	07-05-2026 21:38
Ocean "acidification" once and for all?	31	04-01-2026 22:28
Our Friend the Beaver: Carbon Sequestration, Alkalinity Generation, and the "Extended" Phenotyp	83	23-10-2025 18:40
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	112	07-04-2025 19:09