| 21-05-2026 18:39 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
The "skeptics" at Facebook versus the trolls at climate-debate.com
I actually got a lot of useful information by beginning to post at Facebook about a year ago. The "skeptics" at Facebook know how to do more than just repeat "You cannot acidify an alkaline" a thousand times. They actually post links to articles that they distort as supporting their "scientific" position.
Just yesterday was a GREAT one. A magazine article showing how crabs, shrimp, and lobster are actually making THICKER SHELLS with more CaCO3 in response to ocean acidification. Rather than deny the chemistry and pretend it doesn't exist, they EMBRACED it for purposes of distortion.
What do crabs, shrimp, and lobster all have in common which makes them DIFFERENT than corals, bivalve mollusks, or other "shellfish" of all varieties?
They are all CRUSTACEANS with a CHITIN exoskeleton. Use of CaCO3 in their skeletons evolved as a secondary adaptation. Unlike corals, mollusks, and other shell formers, CRUSTACEANS take in their inorganic carbon as BICARBONATE ION. There is no shortage of bicarbonate ion is sea water. Ocean acidification puts even MORE bicarbonate ion into solution. Good for crustacean shells.
But, with the exception of some calcifying plankton, everyone ELSE in the sea uses CARBONATE IONS to make their CaCO3 shell. Hard to get enough of it.
Acid plus carbonate ion turns it into bicarbonate ion, or:
H+ + CO3(2-) = HCO3-
Crustaceans can cope because they use HCO3- (bicarbonate) and there is even MORE of it in "acidified" sea water. Corals, mollusks, and others suffer because they need CO3(2-) (carbonate), and there is much LESS of it dissolved in sea water as a consequence of ocean acidification.
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:The question is, what are the units used to report it?
To a scientist:
pH is a real number: 0 < pH < 14 ; pH = -ln[H+]
To a software engineer:
double pH (double molarHydronium) {
return -Math.log(molarHydronium)
}
To IBDaMann:
Peanut butter has a pH of 6.3, making my chicken acidic.
When students take their first introductory course in chemistry, one of the things they learn about is "pH"
pH is the negative logarithm of the chemical activity of hydrogen ion in solution.
pH = -log(H+)
That first introductory lecture usually emphasizes how the pH scale is logarithmic, with pH 6.0 having 10 times the (H+) of pH 7.0, pH 5.0 having 100 time the (H+) of pH 7.0, pH 4.0 being 1000x as acidic as pH 7, etc.
Nobody who passed the introductory or high school chemistry class failed to understand that pH was about powers of ten.
Nobody who ever actually used pH in any equation failed to remember that pH was the negative logarithm BASE TEN of (H+).
IBdaMann insisted that an acid would have to be "magical" to have pH = 0.0
Responding to the claim that one drop of acid causes a large decrease in the pH of a liter of pure water, but not so when added to a liter of sea water, due to its buffering, IBdaMann was VERY condescending.
"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."
By the time IBdaMann posted THIS, he was pretending that HE taught ME what pH was, and that it CANNOT be below zero.
"pH is a real number. 0 < pH <14: pH = -ln[H+]" - IBdaMann
But he didn't really know what pH was. Nor did he realize that the equation he presented PROVED that pH could be BELOW zero.
The kind of mistake made by someone who never actually studied chemistry.
Later, he realized that his OWN equation gave <0 for pH of 1.5 M nitric acid.
But he was still using the wrong logarithmic function. So he got pH = -0.4
"pH = -ln[H+]" Uses the NATURAL LOG (ln) not the BASE TEN logarithm.
The CORRECT answer was "pH = -log(H+)", and a 1.5 M nitric acid solution has pH = -0.176
When the fog cleared, IBdaMann insisted that HE taught ME these chem facts.
Anyone who wants to do a reality check on IBdaMann's intellectual honesty can see where HE defines pH INCORRECTLY.
Truly, only someone who NEVER STUDIED CHEMISTRY would make this mistake.
More than just a rookie mistake, to imagine pH based on the natural log displays that IBdaMann NEVER actually studied pH or used in in any math equation.
IBdaMann never discontinued his practice of behaving as a condescending prick.
There is no point engaging in discussion of "science" with IBdaMann, because he never studied any. He doesn't know any. He just knows how to play word games.
Rather than admit he was wrong about pH or buffering in THIS example, he dedicated many paragraphs to convoluted obfuscation to insist that he was somehow CORRECT in his assertions about what happens when a drop of acid is added to a liter of sea water versus a liter of pure water.
There is no point acknowledging his "questions".
He is a scientifically illiterate troll who is unworthy of being engaged with.
Edited on 21-05-2026 18:43 |
| 21-05-2026 18:49 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24080) |
Im a BM wrote:
The "skeptics" at Facebook versus the trolls at climate-debate.com
I actually got a lot of useful information by beginning to post at Facebook about a year ago. The "skeptics" at Facebook know how to do more than just repeat "You cannot acidify an alkaline" a thousand times. They actually post links to articles that they distort as supporting their "scientific" position.
This isn't Facebook, Robert.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. I don't care what Facebook says. Science is not Facebook or any other website.
Im a BM wrote:
Just yesterday was a GREAT one. A magazine article showing how crabs, shrimp, and lobster are actually making THICKER SHELLS with more CaCO3 in response to ocean acidification. Rather than deny the chemistry and pretend it doesn't exist, they EMBRACED it for purposes of distortion.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. It is not possible to measure the thickness of the ocean's crustaceans.
Im a BM wrote:
But, with the exception of some calcifying plankton, everyone ELSE in the sea uses CARBONATE IONS to make their CaCO3 shell. Hard to get enough of it.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Calcium carbonate is.
Im a BM wrote:
Acid plus carbonate ion turns it into bicarbonate ion, or:
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted bad math and whining...
Irrelevance fallacy. Whining is completely pointless, Robert. So is repeating your bad math.
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 |
| 21-05-2026 19:16 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
"Carbonate is not a chemical." - YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot)
If I could get someone to pay me a nickel for every time YARP posted this STUPID sentence ("Carbonate is not a chemical"), I could pay my rent next month even if Trump cuts off my Social Security check.
Well, if "carbonate is not a chemical", then what IS it?
In discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, the term "carbonate" virtually always refers to the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), the divalent oxyanion that is so essential for CaCO3 shell formation and pH buffering in sea water.
Similarly, in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, "bicarbonate" virtually always refers to the BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-. This monovalent oxyanion is not the same as carbonate.
You don't have to call bicarbonate or carbonate a "chemical" in order for them to be VERY important to marine biology and seawater chemistry.
Insisting that bicarbonate or carbonate is NOT a "chemical" does not negate in ANY WAY what these oxyanions do in sea water chemical equilibria, pH buffering, or marine biology.
It just proves you never studied chemistry.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The "skeptics" at Facebook versus the trolls at climate-debate.com
I actually got a lot of useful information by beginning to post at Facebook about a year ago. The "skeptics" at Facebook know how to do more than just repeat "You cannot acidify an alkaline" a thousand times. They actually post links to articles that they distort as supporting their "scientific" position.
This isn't Facebook, Robert.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. I don't care what Facebook says. Science is not Facebook or any other website.
Im a BM wrote:
Just yesterday was a GREAT one. A magazine article showing how crabs, shrimp, and lobster are actually making THICKER SHELLS with more CaCO3 in response to ocean acidification. Rather than deny the chemistry and pretend it doesn't exist, they EMBRACED it for purposes of distortion.
You cannot acidify an alkaline. It is not possible to measure the thickness of the ocean's crustaceans.
Im a BM wrote:
But, with the exception of some calcifying plankton, everyone ELSE in the sea uses CARBONATE IONS to make their CaCO3 shell. Hard to get enough of it.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Calcium carbonate is.
Im a BM wrote:
Acid plus carbonate ion turns it into bicarbonate ion, or:
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted bad math and whining...
Irrelevance fallacy. Whining is completely pointless, Robert. So is repeating your bad math. |
| 21-05-2026 20:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24080) |
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
In discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, the term "carbonate" virtually always refers to the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), the divalent oxyanion that is so essential for CaCO3 shell formation and pH buffering in sea water.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, "bicarbonate" virtually always refers to the BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-. This monovalent oxyanion is not the same as carbonate.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to call bicarbonate or carbonate a "chemical" in order for them to be VERY important to marine biology and seawater chemistry.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Seawater is not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Insisting that bicarbonate or carbonate is NOT a "chemical" does not negate in ANY WAY what these oxyanions do in sea water chemical equilibria, pH buffering, or marine biology.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Sea water is not chemical equilibria.
Water is a buffer.
Marine biology is not made of buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
It just proves you never studied chemistry.
Inversion fallacy.
You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You deny Black's law.
You deny Henyr's law.
You deny statistical mathematics.
You deny random number mathematics.
You deny algebra.
You don't even know what 'climate', 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'term', or even 'chemistry' even means.
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 |
| 21-05-2026 20:38 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
In discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, the term "carbonate" virtually always refers to the CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), the divalent oxyanion that is so essential for CaCO3 shell formation and pH buffering in sea water.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Water is a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Similarly, in discussion of aqueous solution chemistry, "bicarbonate" virtually always refers to the BICARBONATE ION, HCO3-. This monovalent oxyanion is not the same as carbonate.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to call bicarbonate or carbonate a "chemical" in order for them to be VERY important to marine biology and seawater chemistry.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Seawater is not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Insisting that bicarbonate or carbonate is NOT a "chemical" does not negate in ANY WAY what these oxyanions do in sea water chemical equilibria, pH buffering, or marine biology.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Sea water is not chemical equilibria.
Water is a buffer.
Marine biology is not made of buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
It just proves you never studied chemistry.
Inversion fallacy.
You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You deny Black's law.
You deny Henyr's law.
You deny statistical mathematics.
You deny random number mathematics.
You deny algebra.
You don't even know what 'climate', 'science', 'religion', 'real', 'term', or even 'chemistry' even means.
You should have been banned more than 11 years ago.
Your trolling is absolutely RELENTLESS.
Your posts are REPELLENT to discussion.
And you won't stop, nor will anyone else stop you.
Therefore, I will keep my posting at climate-debate.com limited to environmental chemistry.
There is much scientific information about the INTERSTITIUM that I look forward to sharing.
But NO WAY IN HELL do I post it on a website that allows YOU to troll this way.
You already promised to foul up any future discussion of the interstitium.
13,650 "Views" so far of the thread titled "Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads."
Trolls hate it, but the SILENT MAJORITY who view the website without posting seem to be seeking it out. In order to "view" the thread, they had to open it up. A conscious choice made after contemplating the thread title.
As other biogeochemistry-related threads max out at 65,535 "Views" and can record no higher, the biogeochemistry thread guide gives me a way to continue to monitor interest.
I hate to break any troll hearts, but they were NEVER my target audience. |
| 21-05-2026 23:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24080) |
Im a BM wrote:...deleted whining....
Whining accomplishes nothing, Robert.
You continue to deny science.
You continue to deny chemistry.
You continue to deny mathematics.
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 21-05-2026 23:40 |
| 26-05-2026 16:31 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) usually confines his comments to unsupported contrarian assertions. "No, it's not." "There is no such thing.." "Science is not.." ".. is not a chemical."
But once in a while Parrot Poop would compose a full blown rant, such as this one.
"You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy." - Parrot Poop (a.k.a. "YARP", "Into the Night", "ITN")
And THAT is how you "win" the "debate" by displaying knowledge of chemistry.
Heck, just read the scientific genius displayed. It could stand alone as a chemistry lesson for a college chemistry class.
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover 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"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy. |
| 26-05-2026 19:44 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
Bold italics have been added to assist Into the Night in understanding where IBdaMann acknowledges SILICATES as one of the oxyanions that provide alkalinity in sea water.
IBdaMann had actually looked up sea water alkalinity and discovered the list of oxyanions responsible. I had listed bicarbonate and carbonate already, so he "corrected" my chemistry mistake by adding in hydroxide, silicates, and phosphates, whose combined alkalinity is less than 1% of sea water's total.
YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) usually confines his comments to unsupported contrarian assertions. "No, it's not." "There is no such thing.." "Science is not.." ".. is not a chemical."
But once in a while Parrot Poop would compose a full blown rant, such as this one.
"You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy." - Parrot Poop (a.k.a. "YARP", "Into the Night", "ITN")
And THAT is how you "win" the "debate" by displaying knowledge of chemistry.
Heck, just read the scientific genius displayed. It could stand alone as a chemistry lesson for a college chemistry class.
Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severe quoting damage...
sealover 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"?
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
They are not your threads. They are the forum's threads. You may have started them, but you don't own them. Anyone can post in them that want to. Apparently you have no idea of the basic idea of a forum.
It is not personal messaging.
It is not group messaging.
It is a place to post where ANYONE may comment on it.
I realize that his concept is very foreign to you, because you think you have the power to censure people on forums you don't own, like any good little Marxist.
Guess what? You don't. You are a nothing. You have no power here. Indeed, you haven't yet figured out how to handle quoting, post an image, or post an URL.
You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
I have made it clear from virtually my first post that my target audience is comprised of people who care about climate change and are interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. You have no 'audience' either. Your fantasy that you have an adoring audience is nothing. You are a nothing. People on this forum can each read and post where they wish. This is all that see your posts.
sealover wrote:
You have made it clear from your response to my first post and nearly every post since that you are NOT a part of the target audience.
Again, you have no clue about the purpose of a forum. There is no 'target audience'. You have no adoring audience. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
You do NOT care about climate change and you are NOT interested in learning about related biogeochemistry.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. Since you are using this buzzword as a synonym for 'global warming', you should know that it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You should also know that you openly ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.
sealover wrote:
I guess you came to this thread to teach something, or maybe just to hurl insults and make every effort to provoke conflict and...
I will call this Argument 1.
Nah. You're just a nothing. He has attempted to teach you basic science and mathematics that you ignore and refuse to learn. So have I. Since you refused the information as 'anti-science', and since you hurl insults and paranoia, you are literally asking to be insulted.
sealover wrote:
I hope you can understand why I feel no need to acknowledge your statements as having any legitimate place in furthering the understanding of biochemistry in climate change.
Buzzword fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
sealover wrote:
I won't bother pointing out the absurd anti-scientific claims.
He hasn't made any. YOU have. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and even arguing against it.
sealover wrote:
I might ask those who join the site to show their understanding of the topic by pulling out some of your more idiotic quotes to be ridiculed.
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. Attempting to argue both sides of any paradox is irrational.
sealover wrote:
I notice you included silicates on your list of oxyanions that contribute to alkalinity.
You are hallucinating. He never discussed silicates at all.
sealover wrote:
What would be the pH range where silicate buffering would matter most?
Look up the pKa for silicic acid!
See if you can show how to make a solution of silicic acid with pH 5 and 1 mole per liter acid neutralizing capacity.
That might not be fair. YOU PICK THE pH. It could be 8.11 if you want.
It will be easier if you look up the pKa for silicic acid, then pick your pH choice.
Still can't get your head wrapped around the concept of a buffer. Silicates is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
No, this one is for the people who understand science and care about the well being of the earth and humanity.
The usual Church of Global Warming claptrap.
You deny science. You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. Earth is big enough to take care of itself. You cannot control the weather. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Or you could just stop trolling my threads.
Buzzword fallacy. Obviously, you don't know what an internet 'troll' is either. I see this tossed around like an insult quite readily.
'Trolling' is a post that doesn't contribute to the conversation, and is made to goad people into responding to it. A person that makes such posts regularly is known as a 'troll'.
Since you generally refuse to engage in any conversation or indeed to define any words you use, and instead just wander into random subjects to try to impress people, and spend much of your time whining about people that respond to your posts, you are a troll. In other words, you are describing yourself.
You don't own any thread. The forum does. Once you start a thread, you have NO control over who posts there. This is the very nature of forums. Deal with it.
Do other people troll? Sure. I have on occasion, and so does IBdaMann. So does Trump (he is good at it!).
Trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only time it is, is when one posts nothing but insults for post after post and never contributes anything but insults.
People like you draw insults. I know what you are. So does IBdaMann. You are pathetic little nothing that things he's far more important than he is. You are a pathetic little nothing that tries to impress people with big words and buzzwords that you cut and pasted from somewhere. You continue to demonstrate your illiteracy. You can't use forum software properly. Your understanding of chemistry is dismal. Your understanding of science is even worse. You completely deny science and mathematics. Yes...that includes chemistry and biology.
You make fallacy after fallacy. You never correct it. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to a math error in math. These are your fallacies. Only you can correct this behavior. So far, you have shown no inclination to do so.
You are not the first one to show up here with problems this extensive. You think you are special. You are not. You are a nothing. Your own pride is your own worst enemy. |
| 26-05-2026 20:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24080) |
Im a BM wrote:
You should have been banned more than 11 years ago.
You are not Branner. You don't get to decide who is banned or why.
Im a BM wrote:
Your trolling is absolutely RELENTLESS.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Your posts are REPELLENT to discussion.
You aren't having a discussion.
Im a BM wrote:
And you won't stop, nor will anyone else stop you.
Therefore, I will keep my posting at climate-debate.com limited to environmental chemistry.
You deny chemistry, science, and mathematics.
It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
It is not possible to measure Earth's CO concentration.
It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
It is not possible to trap heat.
It is not possible to trap light.
It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining whining...
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 |
| 26-05-2026 20:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24080) |
Im a BM wrote:
Bold italics have been added to assist Into the Night in understanding where IBdaMann acknowledges SILICATES as one of the oxyanions that provide alkalinity in sea water.
Silicate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann had actually looked up sea water alkalinity and discovered the list of oxyanions responsible. I had listed bicarbonate and carbonate already, so he "corrected" my chemistry mistake by adding in hydroxide, silicates, and phosphates, whose combined alkalinity is less than 1% of sea water's total.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Hydroxide is not a chemical.
Silicate is not a chemical.
Phosphate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
Whining is useless, 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 |
| 04-06-2026 01:37 |
sealover★★★★★
(2037) |
Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.
When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.
Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean.
Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it.
It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide.
Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea.
We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems. |
| 04-06-2026 04:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24080) |
sealover wrote:
Imagine a coastline where the rising sea level is creeping up into the saltwater wetlands. Little by little, the estuary is being submerged. In a few decades it will be completely underwater.
Water does not flow uphill.
The sea level is not rising.
sealover wrote:
When the sea level was lower, the low tide was at an elevation well below the estuary soil surface. There was a steep hydraulic gradient to drain water out for a little while. This enabled sulfate rich sea water to move through the organic carbon rich, low oxygen wetland sediment. In so doing, sulfate reducing bacteria were supplied with the substrate they needed to use as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon to acquire metabolic energy. As the estuary water drained out at low tide, it carried with it the alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate ions) generated during sulfate reduction.
There is no such thing as 'hydraulic gradient'.
Carbon is not organic.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbonate is not a chemical.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Now that the sea level is higher, the low tide isn't as low anymore. There is less elevation difference between low tide and land surface. Less of a hydraulic gradient to drive sea water through the sediments. Less sulfate reduction and less alkalinity provided to the ocean.
The sea is not rising.
There is no such thing as 'hydraulic gradient'.
Water does not flow uphill.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Now picture a simple wind turbine or sea wave powered pump off the edge of the estuary. It is pumping sea water a meter or two uphill into the estuary at low tide. There is now more hydraulic pressure to push sea water through the sediments and bring about sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation. The reservoir of organic carbon is already there, lacking only a sufficient hydraulic gradient to get sea water to pass through it.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Carbon is not organic.
There is no such thing as 'hydraulic gradient'.
sealover wrote:
It might be enough to have a pipe transport the sea water from the pump up on to the estuary a hundred meters back from the edge. More sulfate reduction and alkalinity generation could be facilitated if a berm is constructed of sediment along the edge of the estuary to delay the lateral flow of water off the surface back to sea at low tide.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
Pumping seawater in circles does nothing.
sealover wrote:
Even without actively pumping any sea water, a berm alone could accomplish much of the same objective. If the top of the berm is lower than the high tide, it can fill up with sea water. When the tide goes back down, the berm will hold back the water to keep it on the estuary a while longer. Infiltrating sea water into the sediments rather than flowing off the surface back out to sea.
Tidepools are most commonplace.
sealover wrote:
We could assist the estuary to do again what it used to do so well before the sea level got so high. Supplying alkalinity to marine ecosystems.
Alkalinity is not a chemical.
There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'.
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 |
| 10-06-2026 01:24 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3489) |
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! Lamenting the Path Not Taken...
I can only imagine what my life would be like today if I had remained consistent in what I wrote in this post more than fours years ago.
I was right to conclude that it would be a waste of time to attempt to have a rational discussion about science with an arrogant, obnoxious, malignant narcissist, scientifically-illiterate TROLL such as IBdaMann.
I should have never taken the bait more than once.
He was correct to predict that, "You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap."
He had already creeped them out with obsessive stalking and over the top personal attacks, and had driven them all from the website before I got here.
My "crap" being the kind of meaningless gibber babble buzzwords an actual SCIENTIST could bring to the discussion.
Engaging in discussion with IBdaMann was never going to get any better.
The only goal was to be a troll with condescending word games, false accusations, personal attacks, and all kinds of mind-pHucking "Define your terms.." and "There is no such thing as" and projections of "You are a scientifically illiterate moron", "YOU believe blah blah blah RELIGION!"
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Correct. I only use the term "ocean acidification" because that is what is popularly understood.
You are a liar.
You came to this site to preach non-science gibber-babble. You attempted to post a document full of meaningless technical jargon, not one that attempts to explain anything clearly to laymen.
sealover wrote:It is the depletion of alkalinity, not acidification.
Chemistry is not your strength. You should give up pretending it is. You aren't going to find many on this site who will fall for your crap.
sealover wrote:I did study chemistry and other basic science, including a master's degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from UC Davis.
You do not have a degree in Chemistry. That much is painfully obvious.
However, having an affiliation with UC Davis speaks volumes about how much science you were obligated to ignore.
sealover wrote:Two of my publications, in the journals Nature and Biogeochemistry, got a whole lot of attention from climate change investigators.
Translation: "I wrote crap that appealed to scientifically illiterate leftist political hacktivists at local ANTIFA, BLM and Communist Party chapters!"
sealover wrote:I don't expect any particular level of respect based solely on my credentials.
You were expecting respect based solely on the sheer incomprehensibility of your gibber-babble.
Ocean Acidification Debunked
Into the Night's comments
Coral Bleaching Debunked
Forget about posting gibberish papers.
Just explain your point in your own words.
This may be the last time I reply to one of your posts.
Personal insults rarely win a scientific debate.
You are right about one thing. I "don't have a degree in chemistry". That would mean I have only one such degree.
As for calling me a "liar". WTF?
Sounds like you know a lot about Davis. You got my number, all right.
It also sounds like a waste of time to try to discuss science with you.
Prove me wrong. |